If anything, the Republicans should be less fractured, I'd think. They do have constituencies, but they're more aligned than the Democratic ones. There are the Log Cabin Republicans, but we're not talking about more than a fraction of a % of the "base." The RLC is of moderate size, but they're views aren't out of line with conservative values in the least. The Republicans are really two blocs that I see. You have conservatives and religious conservatives (neo-cons fall in this category). The religious conservatives have been the feet on the street for the republicans for several election cycles in a row now, and they energize a LOT of people in ways that don't get headlines until a GW Bush defeats Kerry by millions of votes and several % points... The question you seem to be asking is whether the religious conservatives might stay home or vote democratic because McCain is a little more tolerant than they are. When push comes to shove, they may not agree with McCain on abortion (or whatever), but they sure aren't going to be happy with either Hillary or Obama elected. What choice do they really have?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 5 2008, 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If anything, the Republicans should be less fractured, I'd think. They do have constituencies, but they're more aligned than the Democratic ones. There are the Log Cabin Republicans, but we're not talking about more than a fraction of a % of the "base." The RLC is of moderate size, but they're views aren't out of line with conservative values in the least. The Republicans are really two blocs that I see. You have conservatives and religious conservatives (neo-cons fall in this category). The religious conservatives have been the feet on the street for the republicans for several election cycles in a row now, and they energize a LOT of people in ways that don't get headlines until a GW Bush defeats Kerry by millions of votes and several % points... The question you seem to be asking is whether the religious conservatives might stay home or vote democratic because McCain is a little more tolerant than they are. When push comes to shove, they may not agree with McCain on abortion (or whatever), but they sure aren't going to be happy with either Hillary or Obama elected. What choice do they really have?</div> I think we're more in agreement that it may appear. I'm just not very good at 'splaining myself. I don't think there's any doubt that all of the Republicans are going to come out and vote for McCain -- it's just a question of whether they're going to take that extra step and put their money out there. I think you're right that the Republicans were two blocks, but that the dichotomy isn't near as strong as it was four years ago. And, even if you argue that the dichotomy is as strong as ever, there appears to be fundamental issues that are causing the two groups to conflict in ways that they haven't previously.
Barring something that is revealed in the further vetting of the candidates by the press (Hillary's tax returns, the mystery donors to the Clinton Foundation/possible ugliness with Bill's quid pro quos with the business world, Obama's drug use or his shady land deal, etc.), my guess is this is headed to a brokered convention, and I'd install Hillary as at least a 2-to-1 favorite if that happens. (which stinks. I really like Obama.)
State EC McCain Obama ECVR ECVD Alabama 9 54% 40% 9 Alaska 3 48% 43% 3 Arizona 10 51% 39% 10 Arkansas 6 53% 33% 6 California 55 40% 51% 55 Colorado 9 41% 50% 9 Connecticut 7 34% 55% 7 Delaware 3 41% 50% 3 Florida 27 47% 45% 27 Georgia 15 54% 41% 15 Hawaii 4 31% 61% 4 Idaho 4 52% 39% 4 Illinois 21 31% 60% 21 Indiana 11 50% 41% 11 Iowa 7 41% 50% 7 Kansas 6 50% 41% 6 Kentucky 8 54% 33% 8 Louisiana 9 54% 39% 9 Maine 4 39% 53% 4 Maryland 10 40% 53% 10 Massachusetts 12 42% 49% 12 Michigan 17 45% 46% 17 Minnesota 10 42% 49% 10 Mississippi 6 54% 41% 6 Missouri 11 48% 42% 11 Montana 3 47% 39% 3 Nebraska 5 45% 42% 3 2 Nevada 5 41% 46% 5 New Hampshire 4 44% 46% 4 New Jersey 15 43% 43% 15 New Mexico 5 43% 50% 5 New York 31 38% 52% 31 North Carolina 15 47% 45% 15 North Dakota 3 42% 46% 3 Ohio 20 40% 50% 20 Oklahoma 7 57% 34% 7 Oregon 7 41% 49% 7 Pennsylvania 21 47% 42% 21 Rhode Island 4 38% 53% 4 South Carolina 8 48% 45% 8 South Dakota 3 47% 43% 3 Tennessee 11 54% 38% 11 Texas 34 47% 46% 34 Utah 5 50% 39% 5 Vermont 3 29% 63% 3 Virginia 13 47% 47% 13 Washington 11 38% 52% 11 West Virginia 5 53% 35% 5 Wisconsin 10 40% 51% 10 Wyoming 3 54% 35% 3 District of Columbia 3 n/a n/a 3 270 Electoral Votes Needed to Win 258 280 Some fascinating material from Survey USA this afternoon that is making me rethink the prospects of an extended Primary: The numbers that stick out to me are in Texas and Ohio. Ohio 50 - 40 Obama, and even crazier, Texas 47 - 46 McCain. Now I don't think for a second that the Democrats are going to win Texas; not really going to happen. But just they way it looks. Who would have thought that even in one poll that it could be this close. It's really amazing how despite all the bad news cycles, voters really do respond to getting to know the candidates. I had written Ohio off to McCain up until today, and I'm still not sure it's not going to drastically swing away from the Dems. But if ever there was a shining example of what this extended primary means, the proof is in the numbers. I just heard that Michigan is going to schedule a caucus. There's no way in hell Florida will let it happen, with their Republican governor.
The republicans can be morons sometimes. They've basically been assaulting hispanics since the end of Reagan's 2nd term and the result is they gave away California (which used to vote republican). That's a lot of electoral votes. The anti-illegal immigrant nonsense they're spouting now is sure to turn off hispanics in texas. I'd consider that part of the calculus.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The republicans can be morons sometimes. They've basically been assaulting hispanics since the end of Reagan's 2nd term and the result is they gave away California (which used to vote republican). That's a lot of electoral votes. The anti-illegal immigrant nonsense they're spouting now is sure to turn off hispanics in texas. I'd consider that part of the calculus.</div> Hey not all of them are morons on immigration: McCain is your nominee. He's perhaps the most moderate on immigration in the entire Republican party. If it weren't for all of the hate-speak, I think if you were primarily concerned about Hispanic issues you would have to vote Republican. The Reagan-Bush legacy and the support of free trade -- it's a pretty good sell.
Hispanics are also religious-right material in every sense of the word. The hispanic % of the population is growing (they're having babies while other ethnicities aren't so much). There's no way California should go Democratic considering the population makeup, yet it does. Texas should be nowhere near this close, yet it is. On the other hand, the Democrats are so downright anti-semitic much of the time I find it hard to believe that Jews vote for them as a bloc (for the most part). So it may not be that simple
Oh, and Bush was governor of a border state, McCain is from one. Seems that when you actually know people and have to live with them, you might have a reasonable position about 'em
You would expect the Hispanics to fall in line with the values of the Christian Right . . . except they're Catholics and the Christian Right is Evangelical, and we all know they don't get along. I almost wonder if I was Republican if I would prefer a pretty good beat down this election season over a near loss (of course you'd prefer a win). Enough of a loss so that you would re-evaluate your base, and instead of cow-towing only to the Evangelical, start courting the Catholics. If you look at demographics, the Republicans have a much brighter future than the Democrats if they can make some minor shifts in party positions.
The hispanics WERE part of the religious right / republican core. That's why California did vote republican. I lived there 15 years and I don't think we had a democrat governor the whole time...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is winning Wyoming 59% to 40% with 78% of the vote counted.</div> The race is decided: 7 - 5 Obama. Plus he gets an extra at-large delegate at the convention, so really 8 - 5.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 8 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is winning Wyoming 59% to 40% with 78% of the vote counted.</div> The race is decided: 7 - 5 Obama. Plus he gets an extra at-large delegate at the convention, so really 8 - 5. </div> He almost copied Hillary's net gain in delegates from March 4.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 8 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is winning Wyoming 59% to 40% with 78% of the vote counted.</div> The race is decided: 7 - 5 Obama. Plus he gets an extra at-large delegate at the convention, so really 8 - 5. </div> He almost copied Hillary's net gain in delegates from March 4. </div> I've seen reports on last Tuesday swing from Clinton picking up 10 - 13. So no, Obama hasn't made it all back yet. Wyoming has four super delegates (actually five with one going automatically to the state winner -- I included this in the above tally) though so there will also be more pressure on them to vote Obama. Two of the supers have already gone to Obama -- we'll see about the remaining two. I think it's reasonably possible that Obama makes up for last Tuesday, and pulls even over the past week, this Tuesday in Mississippi. But the larger picture is this: Obama has about a 130-140 lead in the pledged delegates, and like the past six races have shown, that's actually a huge margin. Barring a campaign implosion of some sort, Obama is all but unbeatable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 8 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 8 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is winning Wyoming 59% to 40% with 78% of the vote counted.</div> The race is decided: 7 - 5 Obama. Plus he gets an extra at-large delegate at the convention, so really 8 - 5. </div> He almost copied Hillary's net gain in delegates from March 4. </div> I've seen reports on last Tuesday swing from Clinton picking up 10 - 13. So no, Obama hasn't made it all back yet. Wyoming has four super delegates (actually five with one going automatically to the state winner -- I included this in the above tally) though so there will also be more pressure on them to vote Obama. Two of the supers have already gone to Obama -- we'll see about the remaining two. I think it's reasonably possible that Obama makes up for last Tuesday, and pulls even over the past week, this Tuesday in Mississippi. But the larger picture is this: Obama has about a 130-140 lead in the pledged delegates, and like the past six races have shown, that's actually a huge margin. Barring a campaign implosion of some sort, Obama is all but unbeatable. </div> I saw a report March 5 that said Hillary had a 12 delegate net gain, but then later, I believe after the Texas Caucus was taken into account, she only gained about 4 delegates.
At about 5:50 pm Eastern, Chuck Todd said on MSNBC that Michigan will be a re-vote, as far as the sources he has tells him. That's if the DNC decides to count them at least. Todd also said Michigan will be 54-46 for Obama, and Florida would be 54-46 for Clinton, so essentially the re-votes mean squat.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 8 2008, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>At about 5:50 pm Eastern, Chuck Todd said on MSNBC that Michigan will be a re-vote, as far as the sources he has tells him. That's if the DNC decides to count them at least. Todd also said Michigan will be 54-46 for Obama, and Florida would be 54-46 for Clinton, so essentially the re-votes mean squat.</div> The Sun-Times is running a story that the Obama campaign is killing the idea of a re-vote. I don't blame them. Florida and Michigan in all honesty would most likely result in a dead even delegate count for Clinton and Obama. And not only that, it would allow those two integral states to really get to know Obama, even if he loses, which would only be good in the general. But why would you even go there? You have to fight the battle in front of you, and there is little reason to give Clinton another opening when you don't have to.
Fox news predicts that Barack will win in states that have a maximum number of 303 delegates. Hillary's core has a max of 229 delegates. Guam and Puerto Rico are toss-ups, but Obama has a good chance of increasing his lead. Counting Florida and Michigan, who Chuck Todd said will be do-overs if they even count, Obama has this locked up. Fox was also saying that as of now, McCain beats Hillary 282-176 in a general election (with some toss ups), but loses 252-216 in the general election to Obama.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The hispanics WERE part of the religious right / republican core. That's why California did vote republican. I lived there 15 years and I don't think we had a democrat governor the whole time...</div> Yup its been a long time since we have had a Democrat as our governor.
I think the really big news for the Obama campaign today wasn't in Wyoming but in IL. 14 where Bill Foster beat Jim Oberweis in a Republican-leaning congressional district. The victory is symbolic -- Foster willl face another challenger is just a couple of months. But the reason Foster won was likely because of Obama opening up his donor list and cutting an add on his behalf. All politics is local. And as far as I see it, the Super Delegates are first and foremost concerned about winning their own re-elections again. It appears to me that Obama's proven fundraising acumen and ability to help down-ticket will grab the majority of Supers, even if Hillary is more likely to win in the general (which she is not). When the main stream media talks about Super Delegates I think they miss the point that all of the elected politicians would love to have the Obama bump.
