Results are coming in.
So far, the only one we've got is that Huckabee won West Virginia. They had a state convention to determine delegates, and Romney was clearly ahead with 41 percent, followed by Huckabee at 33, McCain at 16, and Paul at 10. McCain supporters obviously prefer Huckabee to Romney because Romney has a better chance to win the nomination, so almost all of them went to Huckabee. Even though Romney apparently got more than half of the Paul supporters, Huckabee picked up more than enough to put him over the top, 52 to 47 (1 percent to McCain).
Of course, Romney's camp is saying this is backdoor-insider-politics-as-usual, but it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have done the same thing in their shoes. And Huckabee is proclaiming it as victory for his message, when he really won because he was less of a threat to McCain.
More results to be posted as they come in.
UPDATE 4:05 p.m.: CNN projects Obama in Georgia, with ZERO votes reported. I thought they had given up basing their results entirely on exit polling? Guess not. They also claim a three-way race for the Republicans (and one of them isn't Paul).
UPDATE 5:13 p.m.: CNN is projecting McCain in NJ, CT, IL. Romney in MA. Huckabee has opened a lead in Georgia, but the counting is still only about 5 percent.
News reports quote a Paul spokesman saying that Huckabee bought Paul supporters with three of the 18 WV delegates.
UPDATE 6:22 p.m.: Romney has not been projected or announced the winner of any other state but MA. Huckabee also picked up his home state, AR. CNN has projected McCain in Delaware and, most importantly, NY, which gives him more delegates in one shot than anyone else has in the race, total (estimated, of course).
So far McCain has been the only GOP candidate tonight to win a state other than his home state, where he actually had the most people supporting him (I'm looking at you, West Virginia).
In the Democrat race, Obama is doing well in many states, but Hillary picked up NY, as expected, which is winner-take-all.
UPDATE 7:41 p.m.: Obama is picking up pretty much every state in play except for Massachusetts, and McCain is winning every state in play except Alabama, which went to Huckabee. Romney predictably added Utah to his list.
UPDATE 9:28 p.m.: Still no word on California, but McCain and Clinton are way ahead by about 20 points each, with 15 percent counted. If this holds, McCain has not necessarily won, but he has pretty much assured himself a plurality victory going into convention, where beating him would be a very tough task, especially if Huckabee endorses him, which seems likely.
For Clinton, it just means she can fend off Obama for awhile longer. Obama has been picking up most open states, but Hillary's been getting the biggest ones.
UPDATE 9:33 p.m.: CNN calls CA for Clinton and McCain. I can't see Romney having any chance now, unless, again, McCain doesn't get 50 percent, and conservatives rally to him at convention.
My colleague Jeffrey Ressner writes from Los Angeles:
More than 80 voters have been told to vote elsewhere or return later at a voting precinct in Los Angeles because equipment wasn't delivered to a polling place at the West Side Jewish Community Center, precinct supervisor Bernie Cade says.
A local TV station has a classic voter quote on another reported hiccup, at the the La Cienega Tennis Center:
"There's so much frustration in this country, so to feel like I'm a disenfranchised voter in Beverly Hills is ridiculous."
Grace Chavez, spokesperson for the Registrar-Recorder in the county of Los Angeles, says there are 4379 polling places in the county, and she has heard of "no incident where equipment wasn't delivered." She says that "procedures are in place" when polling places can't operate and there are signs placed to re-direct voters to new locations.
Cade, whose polling place has been closed for four hours, said he was short an "ink system" and other equipment.
There have been scattered minor problems around the country, another affecting New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.
Posted by: Miey on February 5, 2008 01:32 PMI disagree with your statement, "McCain supporters obviously prefer Huckabee to Romney because Romney has a better chance to win the nomination." I am personally of the belief that a lot of McCain supporters and a lot of Huckabee supporters just don't like Romney, so to say that his supporters prefer Huckabee because Romney can beat McCain, isn't completely accurate.
This is also why I think the Romney hitmen are wrong when they keep saying if Huckabee wasn't in it then Romney would beat McCain. The polling data clearly shows that McCain's margin would greatly increase if Huckabee was out. It all goes back to the likeabilty and trustability question, Romney doesn't do so well on those and values voters consider character issues like that as more important.
Posted by: Doug on February 5, 2008 01:45 PMDoug, I didn't want to get into ALL the reasons, but yes, that is part of it. But even if they liked Romney a lot, and hated Huckabee, they STILL probably would have voted for Huckabee, just to prevent Romney from winning those 18 delegates.
But you're right, McCain supporters do tend to like Huckabee more than they like Romney. I just see that as a less important factor in what happened here. You have to think: what is the most important thing to McCain supporters? Getting delegates for McCain. If they can't do that, what is the SECOND most important thing to McCain supporters? Making sure the top threat to McCain's nomination chances DOESN'T get delegates, and that means supporting Huckabee over Romney.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 01:55 PM"But you're right, McCain supporters do tend to like Huckabee more than they like Romney."
The converse is also true, as Doug pointed out: Huckabee supporters like McCain more than Romney. The fact is, their supporters don't trust Romney.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 5, 2008 02:08 PMAll the primaries should be held on the same day and only those who are in the party elect their candidates.
I refuse to glorify a fence sitter by calling them "independant" yet allowing them to vote for a party they won't register for.
Independant? Fine! Just don't vote in my party's primary. Wait until the general like the rest of the middle of the road crew.
Posted by: Sam Adams on February 5, 2008 02:24 PMYes, there are obvious disadvantages, but IMO, this particular year, the state's Republican Party should have been advertising all over the place, inviting democrats to vote in the primary. I understand completely those who disagree, I just see the opportunity different at this point in time.
Looks like if Huckabee wins the nomination he'll owe McCain the VP slot, now.
Posted by: Doug on February 5, 2008 02:37 PMWhy?
You appear to be in favor of the party, but the decisions of when to hold primaries and who can participate are ultimately decisions made by the parties.
Doug: that would be really bad for McCain. Not only would it destroy McCain's best chance at pulling conservatives back to his side, but it would alienate the many independents and moderates -- McCain's electoral strength -- who are scared of Huckabee's perceived "theocratic" leanings.
The economy will improve, but the terrorists will not stop till were all worshiping Mohamed. Best candidate on National Security on day one is clearly McCain.
It will mean nothing with respect to the people, and could cause hell come the conventions.
But it will be fun to watch non the less.
Posted by: GS on February 5, 2008 04:34 PMRomney is the last, clear choice for retaining any semblance of a conservative with good ideals, CEO Experience at both Government and private sector levels and has been a proven success in both arenas. He is obviously qualified in more facets of running the government than any of the other empty suits he's running against (especially the Dems).
McCain is a cantankerous, stubborn, old warhorse that I will only vote for if he's the only remaining name on the (R) ballot....The RNC needs to start cleaning house and pick up the pieces left after this 2008 election debacle.
Someone with a pulse and some pigment might be a good suggestion to start with for 2012...
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2008 04:37 PMPaul supporters made a deal with Huckabee camp to get 3 of their delagates. That is why so many went to another candidate. So where it counts Paul got 2nd in WV. Also true in NV, LA, and ME.
Posted by: Lysander on February 5, 2008 04:57 PMHere is a link on Pauls 3 delagates. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/34131
Posted by: Lysander on February 5, 2008 05:00 PMCare to back that up with facts/proof GS or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Based on the facts I see a lot of states had Closed (read party-only) Primaries, including Connecticut & Oklahoma which McCain handily won.
I don't know if Democrats have open primaries. But the facts seems to indicate your talking out your ass GS.
Pardon me but this sentence makes no sense at all:
"So far, the only one we've got is that Huckabee won West Virginia. They had a state convention to determine delegates, and Romney was clearly ahead with 41 percent, followed by Huckabee at 33, McCain at 16, and Paul at 10."
How can Huckabee have won if Romney was "clearly ahead"??
Posted by: pbj on February 5, 2008 07:13 PMDo you think Romney is going to pluck down another $15-20 million or do you think he gets out?
Posted by: Doug on February 5, 2008 10:35 PMYes, except for the part about votes for Romney going to Huckabee. And Huckabee being close to McCain.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 10:41 PMMost interesting, though, is that Obama did best in Red States that the Ds have little chance of winning -- but the same can be said for McCain's biggest victories, too.
Mac needs to always appear with Mamma McCain -- to disspell the AGE concern. He has good genes!
Interesting note on California. It is winner-take-all by Congressional District. Check out http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/rcd/0159.htm for California results. With 10% - 25% of the results in, McCain wins EVERY CD -- even Orange County. A clean sweep, so far.
Now he needs to "make nice" at CPAC this week-end. Well, as nice as he can.
Will be an interesting spring.
Posted by: D - Web on February 5, 2008 11:11 PMWhen the race comes down to headsup between McCain and Huckabee it will get real interesting, real fast. Huckabee can outdebate McCain, and Huckabee will attract the conservative base all for himself.
I'm not saying Huckabee will win enough delegates for the nomination, but if Romney drops out, rather than "suspend his campaign" then those delegates will be liberated from Romney. Who will they support? Hmmm.
Interesting thoughts, eh? Don't think it's over.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 5, 2008 11:14 PMI looked at Romney's wife when he said, "This campaign will go on."
She didn't believe him. If you see the clip, watch her when he says that. She wasn't buying it.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 5, 2008 11:23 PMThe social conservative base, maybe. The rest of the conservatives will not vote for Huckabee. And I say this as a right-wing conservative evangelical Christian: I would never ever support Huckabee in the primary. Period. He is not a conservative, from my perspective. When I sang "Huckabee's compassionate" in my song, I was trying to highlight something unique about him in the campaign, but in my own mind I was giving the reason why I wouldn't support him. We have had one "compassionate conservative" President in recent memory, and our nondiscretionary spending has ballooned because of it. Never again.
I am going to be for Thompson in the precinct caucus. After that, my second choice is, right now, Romney. And my third would be McCain.
I think you're all underestimating just how much Huckabee, as a Presidential candidate, is disliked by conservatives. It's not just Rush. I rarely watch Fox News or CNN (or *spit* MSNBC), and I almost never listen to talk radio. And this is the only large political web site I read. This isn't just a few conservative commentators attacking Huckabee. I, like many others, just listened to Huckabee and figured out very early on that he was the opposite of what I wanted in a conservative.
Every day I see someone else saying, "the more I listen to Huckabee, the more I dislike him," and it's not because of his demeanor (which is bad enough in certain situations, like his passive-aggressive "some people suggest Clear Channel is behind all this"), but because of his positions. Because he is a "compassionate conservative."
I think the moment I personally finally gave up on Huckabee was at the Tavis Smiley debate, where he basically promised to try to use the federal government to provide more housing opportunities and and medical care for black people. While those are fine goals to have, they are not issues the federal government should be involved in. And he talks like this all the time. Use the government for this and that and the other thing. NO. A thousand times, no.
As many Republicans hate McCain, I honestly believe most of them who are not already voting for Huckabee, would rather have McCain than Huckabee.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 11:52 PMBut you are giving McCain too many free passes if you think Huckabee is less of a conservative than the Senator from Arizona. I won't remind you of the number of times McCain has treated social (and even fiscal) conservatives with disdain and derision. Nor will I remind you of how many times McCain has run in the opposite direction of our party on almost every major issue we've dealt with the last ten years.
I like McCain. I like Huckabee. I've got problems with both of them.
But I also don't want to be such a purist that we give the election to a charged-up Democratic base and elect possibly the most liberal US Senator to the White House. I think this is possible if McCain cannot appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. He has NEVER proven a willingness to do so, and he's run for president ten or twelve times now.
What we are seeing here is a major problem the GOP faces in the upcoming election. We don't like our choices. We REALLY don't like our choices. The Democrats are ecstatic about theirs. That motivated base will ride the Democrats to victory if one or the other of our candidates (I'm still sticking to my "McCain-Huckabee final two" prediction) can't lock in and motivate the conservative base.
I do believe that Republicans have it tougher than Democrats in that we vote with our heads, and the Obama campaign is proving the prevalence of the emotion-vote in the Democrat base. On Hannity and Colmes the other day they had a focus group of Democrat voters who had said they had swithed allegiances to Obama. Hannity asked the focus group to name one accomplishment that Obama had...not a one could answer. Some did, however, mention his inspirational oratory skills as an "accomplishment" or a qualification to be the leader of the free world.
The Democrat race this year is all about emotion, but then emotion can be incredibly powerful in campaigns.
As a client once told me, "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument."
Unless something turns around, we may have a nominee with the best arguments competing against a Democrat who gives the voters something better...a vision.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 6, 2008 12:15 AMSuper Tuesday showed again that a McCain-Huckabee ticket might bring a GOP win. Especially win Hillary as the Great Unifier. Shame on Rush, Lady LongLegs, and Dobson for being a Fifth Column to the conservative cause. Rule #1 in politics is "you have to win."
McCain/Huckabee is toast against Clinton/Webb or Obama/Webb. Toast.
First of all, look at the primary turnouts and money being raised. 2 to 1 or better for the dems. McCain is no GWB when it comes to fundraising. He's not going to pull in the kind of coin that it will take to win.
The dems only need to carry the same states that Kerry won in 2004 and flip Ohio. Get it? That's it. Ohio isn't a screaming lib place; that's why you'll see a Blue Dog running in the dem veep slot. That guy's job will be to build a camp in Ohio and spend 90% of his time there.
And, pudge? What the hell is this?
I am going to be for Thompson in the precinct caucus.
What for? Thompson's not in the race. He just wasn't interested in running a full-tilt boogie race.
The best thing to do is to put energy in getting Dino Rossi in Olympia. Forget the Prez race. Trouble is, all it will take is 1 appearance by Hillary! or Obama here and Dino's had it (too much energy from the coattails).
Sorry to sound so negative, guys, but Romney was the only chance we had. McCain is going to get murdered.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on February 6, 2008 12:15 AMRepublicans need to prepare to burst the bubble that is Obama if they hope to win in November. Kinda like pulling the curtain back in the Wizzard of Oz.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 6, 2008 12:22 AMAlso, the most liberal Senator in the race dropped out a week or so ago. :-)
I almost hope Obama wins the nomination. I would love to go after his Blueprint for Change. Here's tonight's highlight: Obama will create a credit card rating
system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents.
This is seriously from his own web site. It's amazing. The Blueprint is full of stuff like this. I would LOVE to run against it. Also his claim that the way to cut costs of health care is ... more regulation. Insane stuff.
Steve: Webb is a TERRIBLE choice for the Democrats. He's an extremely nasty man who will destroy the "positive" message both Hillary and Obama are trying to project. Like Chad said, the Democrats are trying to push a "vision." The Webb vision would be great for the antiwar left who is already motivated, but will turn off independents. He has only one message: Republicans are evil. That's it.
What for? Thompson's not in the race.
Because no strong conservative is in the race, and I want to vote for a strong conservative. It's quite simple.
Further, even though I favor Romney over McCain, I think McCain has a better chance in the general election, ESPECIALLY against Hillary and whoever she could pick. Hillary has the same problems with the left that McCain has with the right, and McCain does better with independents and even some moderate Democrats.
Sure, all Hillary would need to do is pick up Ohio. But I doubt she would, and I don't think she could hold on to some of the other midwest states, and maybe not even PA ... or maybe even WA.
Obama is an unknown. At first glance he could really clean up, but that is before we put a microscope on his actual views and policies, such as I mentioned above.
I agree with Chad (I think): at this point, Hillary almost has to pick Obama as her running mate if she wins the nomination. The question is whether after all this, he would take it. I think so, though.
Second, I think Obama might take the Veep spot, but Hillary won't. She's above that.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 6, 2008 12:58 AMI just don't see McCain drawing any appreciable amount of dems in the general, for the basic reason that you can't out democrat a democrat. The reason he polls well among those folks is because he spends time bashing Republicans. When presented with the choice of a Republican-bashing Republican or a Republican-bashing democrat, democrats will vote for the latter in a heartbeat.
Steve: Webb is a TERRIBLE choice for the Democrats. He's an extremely nasty man who will destroy the "positive" message both Hillary and Obama are trying to project. Like Chad said, the Democrats are trying to push a "vision." The Webb vision would be great for the antiwar left who is already motivated, but will turn off independents. He has only one message: Republicans are evil. That's it.
Of course it's his message. It's been the entire party's message for 7 years now.
Forget all the change rhetoric. If you look at the next sentence in one of those speeches, you'll find phrases like, "We need to move past the bombthrowing partisanship of Newt Gingrich" (that was Dave Ross tonight) or "We need to clean up the partisan atmosphere in Washington, there largely due to the policies and failed Presidency of George W. Bush" (the rest of the lib pundits).
This 'change' nonsense just happens to be their latest brand image du jour. It's meaningless tripe. Webb fits that ticket because they need a strong (well, as strong as any dem can be) foreign policy type AND a blue dog dem to woo the south.
Putting Webb on the ticket likely nets Virginia for the democrats this time around, maybe even Florida. With those 2 they don't need Ohio.
I agree with Chad (I think): at this point, Hillary almost has to pick Obama as her running mate if she wins the nomination. The question is whether after all this, he would take it. I think so, though.
Won't happen for 2 reasons:
1. Clintons like fellow Clintonistas. Obama isn't part of their camp; he's the young outsider who's throwing a monkey wrench into Hillary!'s coronation. The Clintons hold grudges.
2. Obama has had a taste of the rarefied air of frontrunner status. If he accepts the veep slot he's dooming himself to living with her (inevitably) bad record over the next 4 years...plus, he saw how the C's treated Gore. He knows he won't sniff any real policymaking decisions especially with Bill really being the de facto Vice President. There's no way Obama waits until 2012 or 2016, his time is now, and he knows it.
> who are scared of Huckabee's
> perceived "theocratic" leanings.
You don't think Huckabee has earned that perception?
Posted by: JohnA on February 6, 2008 01:53 AMThe Dems will pick a Veep like Evan Bayh with a centrist lean, deep mid western roots and a solid candidate to fill the presidential void after 8 years of either B.O. or H.C. Bayh alone is enough to turn Ohio, so it looks pretty bleak on the horizon for the GOP.
Where did my party leadership go??
Posted by: Rick D. on February 6, 2008 06:06 AMMcCain splits the Republican party nationally and perhaps statewide. Amazing. The least desirable candidate is the front runner. How is this possible?
Posted by: Snuffy on February 6, 2008 06:38 AMJust wait and see how fast the MSN's turns on McCain. They have had a love fest for years. But if Mccain thinks they will be nice to him if he makes it, he's a even bigger fool.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 07:00 AMI just don't see McCain drawing any appreciable amount of dems in the general, for the basic reason that you can't out democrat a democrat.
Well, it remains to be seen. The only reason I think it is possible is because so many Democrats hate Hillary, including many moderate Democrats. I personally know several actual Democrats and independent left-of-centers who might vote for McCain over Clinton. And these are people who know both of them pretty well. (One of them is a gun-toting leftist who voted for Obama; another is a Vietnam vet and Dem activist who temporarily switched parties and voted for McCain, because he lives in Florida and his vote for Obama wouldn't count.)
Putting Webb on the ticket likely nets Virginia for the democrats this time around, maybe even Florida. With those 2 they don't need Ohio.
I doubt either one. Webb only won Virginia narrowly because Allen screwed up so badly, and Florida loves John McCain.
1. Clintons like fellow Clintonistas. Obama isn't part of their camp; he's the young outsider who's throwing a monkey wrench into Hillary!'s coronation. The Clintons hold grudges.
But there's something much more important than that, to them: winning.
If he accepts the veep slot he's dooming himself to living with her (inevitably) bad record over the next 4 years...plus, he saw how the C's treated Gore. He knows he won't sniff any real policymaking decisions especially with Bill really being the de facto Vice President. There's no way Obama waits until 2012 or 2016, his time is now, and he knows it.
If he loses the nomination, his time is not now. Obviously. So the question is simply whether he takes the VP slot knowing he won't have a chance for at least another four years ANYWAY, and knowing it will come with all the baggage that the Clintons carry. I think he will.
JohnA: You don't think Huckabee has earned that perception?
Nope. Wanting to pass laws banning abortion and gay marriage does not make you a theocrat, any more than wanting to pass laws banning slavery, or getting universal suffrage, or passing universal health care, makes you a theocrat.
Snuffy: Again, Hillary splits the Dem party just as much as McCain splits the GOP. Also, no, Huckabee is the least desirable GOP candidate, not McCain. :-)
What's remarkable is that on the issues that seem to plague this blog the most; Transportation and Education, there is no doubt that Huckabee performed much better than Romney. Only problem is that he is a rural hick and Romney is a man's man, well, metrosexual anyhow.
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 09:48 AMRomney's record on transportation, education, taxes and fees, job growth, etc. was abismal in Massachusetts. Huckabee's record on the same was real good - including the tax part. Why? Because when he left office his state's ratings for best tax climate for businesses to locate didn't drop like Mitt's state.
You are afraid that Huckabee will DO good at the federal level where you think the feds have no business. I don't think so, I think sure he wants to work on the infrastructure which includes interstate highways - but heck, that is where the government belongs. They sure don't belong in the business of supplying $50 abortions and mandating healthcare.
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 11:15 AMNope. I ignore none of it.
You are afraid that Huckabee will DO good at the federal level where you think the feds have no business.
Where the Constitution says he has no business.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 11:37 AMThat's the problem, will he do it or stick it to our party again and cross over to the dem side.
Funny how NO-ONE wants to answer that one.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 12:58 PM