Perhaps it's easier to say who lost... Mitt Romney. Gone. Toast. So on the Republican side it is almost possible to say that McCain will now be the nominee. Mike Huckabee exceeded expectations and cemented himself as a player.
On the Democratic side both camps can make an argument for having won. Hillary Clinton bested Obama in California in part due to absentee ballots. The tide was turning to Obama but many people had already voted for Clinton by post. But Obama won more states and exceeded expectations in two thirds of them. The consensus among the pundits is that the situation is little clearer now than it was this time yesterday. So next week's primaries in the Washington DC area (Maryland & Virginia) take on add significance. Washington and Wisconsin follow a week later.
I have to say I was less excited last night than I expected to be. The TV coverage was dominated by 50-60 year old white men who could bore for America. There was no electric atmposphere at all. There were too many talking heads and not enough real psephological analysis on many of the channels. Karl Rove was the star of the night in my view. It was his debut as a pundit on Fox, and he did brilliantly. Clear, concise, eloquent - no posing.
Well I am about to head off for a tour of Congress, and then this afternoon I am interviewing Craig Fuller, who was chief of staff to George H W Bush.
44 comments:
Peggy Noonan was on BBC News 24 for about five minutes just as I was going to bed. I'd never seen her before and she was excellent.
Yes, but Anderson Cooper on CNN is a real cutie
Undoubtedly McCain has the race sewn up although conservatives will surely be wondering what would have happened if there had been one conservative candidate to take on McCain rather than two. With the GOP adopting winner takes all on many big states, there was really no prospect of anything other than a McCain victory.
On the Democrat side, the Clinton camp's attempts to spin victory do not wash with me. You rightly point out the effect of early postal votes but there is a much stronger argument here as to why her position is not as strong as it seems. If you exclude super delegates (who distribute their votes according to personal preference), Obama has now moved ahead of Clinton. The DNC will not want to anoint a presidential candidate who has not won more delegates democratically. Secondly, the momentum is clearly with Obama who has all but wiped out Clinton's national lead and who ought to win the next set of primaries due this weekend and next week (Washington, Louisiana, DC, Maryland and Virginia). Thirdly (and most crucially for Democrats), Obama has proven that he has reach. We all know that Hillary can rely on the blue collar union vote and women voters but she cannot draw soft republicans. Indeed she will only energise them to vote for the GOP. By contrast, Obama can count on the votes that Hillary would have won and he can draw what we in the UK would call floating voters.
Of course the debate has been horribly light on policy and substance to date and therein lies Obama's weakness but as things stand, I see Obama as being in a pretty strong position. Oh and he has shed loads more campaign money than Hillary so I understand.
Obama won 45% of the white vote in Georgia. He won Missouri, a key bellweather state. He's positioned well in DC, and has a double-digit lead in Maryland. Then again, he lost every county in NY except for the one with Cornell Uni. I wonder if he'll start releasing more YouTube-only videos.
Thanks for this, Iain. Good analysis. I was up watching live feed of the abc news coverage via their website. The old guy they had on there was awful. He just kept going on about things that happened in the early 70s. It seemed his only frame of reference! CNN's feed had a cute anchor who made it more bearable!
The demise of the NeoCons – Rejoice !
Whatever else Super Tuesday means it confirms at long last the demise of the NeoCons as a force in American politics – for the time being anyway. Whether Romney was an enthusiastic follower of the NeoCon fashion I don’t know – but now he is out of the way we have three remaining candidates in Clinton, Obama and McCain who certainly don’t worship at the fetid NeoCon temple.
In years to come observers will wonder what on earth America was up to in allowing its leaders to be hijacked by this flawed and dangerous ideology. In Dubya they had the ideal patsy – dim, pliable and accommodating the NeoCon conspirators could not have believed their luck! And two disastrous wars later it will be for McCain or Clinton or Obama to clean the Aegean stables. Good luck to whoever has the task! In the meantime, Mr Bush, please stop pointing your phallic weapons at Tehran…
I've got my fingers crossed for Obama because we don't want a Democrat in the White House and he will lose it for the Dems. Hillary would be in with a chance. Much as I loathe her, she is perceived as a safe pair of hands.
Unbelievable … Still beating Hilary over the head. Dale you are turning into an Apologist.
Clinton won the big states
Clinton won the most delegates
Clinton got a higher % share of the vote
Clinton got more actual overall votes.
Correct Obama won more states, but this does include sparsely populated states, Utah and Delaware.
Yet still you try to put a negative spin on Clinton’s performance.
It does seem that this woman has the Tories and their bloggers scared stiff. Continual pessimistic coverage of Clinton and her campaign says more about you.
I see McCain is likely to be in London in the next few weeks, should be interesting.
Touchy, or what! Reread that post. Nothing anti Hillary at all. Though of course I am anti her. But I'd rather have her as the Dems candidate as I thiunk mccain can beat her.
PM presenter accused (an in court) of gay rape:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3304439.ece
If this had been a Tory MP / any MP/ Guido / Iain would the media have maintained radio silence for a year?
BBC and media bias at its worst.
Oh Dale you always make me chuckle.
You said:
Karl Rove was the star of the night in my view. It was his debut as a pundit on Fox, and he did brilliantly. Clear, concise, eloquent - no posing.
Don’t you mean the lying, leaking, spinning bloke who Bush had to push out of the White House. Rove is widely accepted to be a malevolent nasty piece of work.
Rove is the sort of bloke that if you asked for directions and he said go right at the next set of lights – then you should go left instead. This is the bloke who advised the worst president of all time.
Rove also stated that “a Republican had a good chance of winning the 2008 presidential election, he said, because Democrats would choose the "fatally flawed" Hillary Clinton as their candidate”.
If that came out of Roves mouth… then the Democrats should definitely pick Hilary are their nominee
Oh dear qwerty, it seems you and others are putting words in my mouth today. I was passing comment on Roves ability as a pundit, not his record in the White House. Did you actually see him last night? Well did you?
Who cares? Maybe nearer November the UK can give a ***k, but not now. We've got a massive pile of pooh of our own to sort out surely? Isn't UK plc going to explode soon? An economy going down the pan, Sleaze out of control, voter apathy accompanied by the almost complete rejection of the political elite, uncontrolled immigration, crime????? Who really cares about all this presidential bollocks?
> If that came out of Roves mouth… then the Democrats should definitely pick Hilary are their nominee
You underestimate the devious Rove - it was a double bluff
Unless he's even cleverer than that and it was a treble bluff??
Paddy Briggs
Time will tell but I think you are just so wrong with that one. Although I would prefer you to be right.
IMO
This is a policy way over the heads of US presidents. Why do you think none of the candidates talk about the war, if at all possible?
Expect NO material change on this matter, whoever wins, and you will not be disappointed.
Qwerty do you know anyone who actually knows Rowe? I do and he is not a nasty piece of work. He is serious about what he does but so what?
As far as Super Tuesday. It was not the decisive blow for either side which make for an interesting Spring. What is most interesting is that Huckabee still had legs ; enough to seriously hurt Romney.
The Kennedys could not even deliber Mass for Obama.
I think I was the only one responsible for "spinning" against Hillary.
Winning in November will have nothing to do with winning states like California, NJ and NY. It will about winning back Reagan Democrats in Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin and I don't think Hillary as a rat's chance of doing that against McCain unless he does a Michael Foot during the campaign and trips over a table.
Why can't the Democrats have a co-presidency (not Billary) - but with B-Rock and Hills? Is there a legal reason why this can't be done? John Edwards could then be VP.
The next President is soooo going to be a Democrat. You can sense it. You can tell that the Republicans have fallen out of grace...they are finished.
Fantastic news.
McCain really is far too old and feeble to be President. He 'cares' too much about keeping 'the war' going. That view is so out of touch with the general public in the States.
Plus McCain's Barbie Doll Stepford wife is apparently a bit of a bunny boiler according to the newspapers...ex pill popper addict... She is far too unstable to be First Lady. hehehe :)
Go Obama!
Iain Dale said...
Touchy, or what! Reread that post. Nothing anti Hillary at all. Though of course I am anti her. But I'd rather have her as the Dems candidate as I thiunk mccain can beat her.
February 06, 2008 3:42 PM
Well Done Dale Finally some truth, it will set you free.
All the Tory Bloggers hate Hilary, but some try to disguise their hate by being critical but fail to be overly critical - Clandestine criticism. Hilary is very popular amongst women, and that includes women here in the UK. If all the blues nose started openly expressing their revulsion for old Hilly, it wouldn’t look too good – would it Dale.
Correct Cindy McCain will make the election more interesting.
She once said "I think the American people truly still want a traditional family in the White House."
This from a woman who is 20 years younger than her husband, pops pills, and adopts Bangladeshi children…Very Traditional I think You Will Agree..
Plus McCain's Barbie Doll Stepford wife is apparently a bit of a bunny boiler according to the newspapers...ex pill popper addict... She is far too unstable to be First Lady. hehehe :)
Canvas: If you really are an Obama supporter, please try to emulate his class and basic civility.
anonymous@4.00pm:
Are you the kind of bore who goes to a party, and spends the whole evening whinging about the host and how everything from the food and drink to the other guests stinks? I don't see why Ian should have to keep repeating this, but it is his blog and he writes about subjects that interest him at the time. If you don't like it, who the hell is forcing you to point your browser here?
Anonymous @ 3.24 wrote:
Clinton won the big states
Clinton won the most delegates
Clinton got a higher % share of the vote
Clinton got more actual overall votes.
1) And your point is?
2) Don't be so sure about that...
3) You do realise none of the Democratic primaries apportion delegates on a winner-takes-all basis, or even necessarily divide them up entirely based on the state-wide figures.
4) Again, that doesn't necessarily translate in the majority of the delegates.
It doesn't matter what everyone projected last night. Today is the delegate count day.
And the Obama campaign have sent out an excel spreadsheet showing the actual delegate counts and they say they have won the most.
http://tinyurl.com/2gb4y9
An argument I have heard in favour of Hillary is that it is time for the US to have a female President and that it is hard to imagine any woman but Hillary with a chance of winning? Condy Rice doesnt stand a chance. Both because of her GWB connection and also as she is single. On the other hand it seems inevitable that they will have a black male President sometime soon.
Basically, the argument goes, the husband of any woman candidate will be subjected to too much unwarranted scrutiny in a way that Dennis Thatcher never was. He will almost certainly be a successful businessman or politician and hence have some skeletons - real or made up. Bill, for all his faults, is a known quantity and any criticism just sounds like the wind whistling through a sun-bleached carcass.
Are you aware of any other women who are seen as potential presidential candidates, on either side, in the next 20 years?
Sea Shanty Irish here:
Next on presidential nomination calendar is Washington State precinct caucuses (both Democratic & Republican) on Saturday, February 9.
Iain, you should have taken my advice (as with Delaware road trip) and NOT spent Super Tuesday night with a bunch of talking heads.
scott redding: bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram.
And anyway, Mr Dale, what's wrong with blokes of 50-60?
I just talked to a friend in Texas who is in on the skinny and he says it will be a Clinton/Richardson ticket. That would be strong. Too strong. I'd rather madrassa-attendee Obama.
I don't agree that "women like Hillary". I don't know one woman who likes Hillary - although all my American friends are Reps, so that might explain it. The dependency classes like Hillary, of course, for the same reason social beggars in Britain like monsters like Harriet Harman, Jacqui Wotsit, Jack Straw, etc.
If it's Obama, a McCain/Huckabee ticket will walk it. If it's Hillary/Richardson - more of a fight and anyone's guess.
All that said, I'm not happy with McCain, although he can beat Obama.
As of now McCain is marginal favouite ove Clinton then Obama on both Betfair& Sporting Index.
SOOOOO McCain won super Tuesday
co-presidency (not Billary) - but with B-Rock and Hills? Is there a legal reason why this can't be done? John Edwards could then be VP.
You should watch what you eat & drink, then you won't get these nightmares :)
You think Billary will share with anyone? As for Edwards, why would anyone want him on the ticket ? The voters already saw thru' his hypocritical Elmer Gantryesque nonsense and sent him packing.
Talk to the hand.
Obama will win the Democratic nomination unless he does something spectacularly wrong or Clinton does something spectacularly right.
It's a simple projection. He came from further behind than Hillary and now is edging slightly ahead. His lead will continue to slowly increase. Hillary's core vote is women of a certain age and class, wherease Obama has wider appeal - particularly to the young. Hillary's attempts to play nasty have backfired spectacularly and there isn't much more she can do other than get out her core vote - which shouldn't be underestimated in itself, as if it wasn't for Obama's character advantages she would be a certainty.
Even by your standards a stupid post Verity. Why are you suggesting that Obama is a maddrassa attendee? And why despite all the evidence from the polls do make the dumb suggestion that women aren't supporting Hillary because you don't happen to know any of them . Ann Coulter you ain't
Who won ?
Who cares !
It's a shame that the blogosphere is so taken up with the American elections, which run all year.
The non-debate of the Lisbon Treaty going on in Parliament, limited to 1 and a half hours a day on each issue is really shocking.
The reports in Johnredwoodsdairy.com are really shocking and depressing. We all know that BRown isn't allowing any real debate and has axed the time avaialable to discuss the Treaty.
Bt reading what that actually means in the Chamber, and how the government is not even replying to serious and good questions placed by opposition, is deeply shocking.
I wish you were here Iain and not there to follow this story which is critically important for the future of Britain. Go to JRD to see what I mean.
The US elections are interesting, but this country has no media. Now we are losing our bloggers too. Shame.
Didn't the DemocRats whinge a blue streak when their man won the most votes in 2000, but failed to win the Whitehouse? It would be wonderfully ironic if Clinton got more votes in the Primaries but lost the nomination because Obama got more delegates. I wonder how the Dems would spin that!
psephological? psephological analysis? i guess it's a case of When in Rome... next thing you'll be recommending psephomastical exertion as a cure for stuttering!
Iain/anyone answer this question regarding the US parties' voting systems?
(the BBC is too busy wetting itself about Obarma and "change")
In a close race what happens to the delegates who were elected for the 4th and 5th candidates?
eg Edwards got delegates (didn't he?)
can they now choose in a free vote who to vote for at conference or does John Edwards tell'um?
Iain,
Brown cannot answer questions. No MP will talk about ''allowances''
Gorbals Mick picks a team of yes men and nobody will take him on, because it is said Gorbals will never allow that, or those MP's to ask a question ever again--they are frightened!! In a democracy!
The United Kingdom is being pushed into a European United States and parliament is being denied the line by line debate on the constitution it was promised AND the country is being denied the referendum it was promised in ALL three parties manifesto's. The LibDems as normal change their policy and are now supporting Brown's hypocritical stance.
With all this going on. Iain Dale goes to the USA and talks about nothing other than the Primaries.
IT DOESN'T MATTER - WE cannot do anything about it Iain, whoever gets to stand in the election and whoever wins that election, cannot and will not be affected by you and the bloody army of UK television, radio and press personnel over there.
Frankly I am far more concerned about the bloody mess over here.
Thank God Guido has stayed home. He most certainly has got his priorities sorted out.
Malcolm,who wrote: Even by your standards a stupid post Verity. Why are you suggesting that Obama is a maddrassa attendee?
You are correct. At forty-somthing, he is much too old to be attenting a madrassa.
I should have written "ex-maddrassa attendee from ages six through 10". Is that better?
Tapestry - That was a cry from the heart. There is nothing you can do because the British abdicated all rights to control their government when Tony and Alastair threatened people with prison and ruin for trying to avail themselves of their rights as (formerly) free-born Britons.
It is going to take a civil war. We are also going to have to get rid of the Queen, who could have stopped Blair seven or eight years ago, when people began to open their eyes as to what was happening, by dismissing his admnistration.
The only thing she can do now that things are so far gone is dismiss Gordon Brown's mare's nest and order the armed services onto the streets. I believe they're the last people in Britain who are not subjects of the mighty Labour government.
I would love to see a civil war, frankly. Is there a balcony in No 10 that Gordon could step on out to accept the adoration of the crowds?
Tendryakov said...
"scott redding: bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram."
A bellwether (not bellweather) was a wether with a bell put round its neck so that it can lead the flock. It now means a leading indicator of future trends.
Hillary currently has an 85 delegate lead so this could be a VERY close thing which could mean a very interesting conference.
1.Edwards got 61 delegates.
AND
2.Could someone mount a legal challenge for Florida and Michigan (210) delegates to be given a vote EVEN though they were banned by democratic national HQ?
-In fact the New York Times suggests that the local Democratic party in BOTH states could organise ANOTHER primary later in the summer.
3.Senior politicians who are "super delegates" at the conference who can decide for themeselves who to vote for.
Oh goody prospects of the hypocritical "some of my best friends are...." Democratic party ripping itself apart on very very old race lines this summer.
In the infamous words of Alan
Partridge on hearing good news: "A wank I think!".
Wait until polling day and they let those FL retirees loose on the chads!
Strapworld, I meant to address my last post to you, as well, in response to your post on this thread.
"Don’t you mean the lying, leaking, spinning bloke who Bush had to push out of the White House. Rove is widely accepted to be a malevolent nasty piece of work."
Yes. It is widely accepted by the Democrats, BBC, New Labour and the rest of the leftist outfit.
"Rove also stated that “a Republican had a good chance of winning the 2008 presidential election, he said, because Democrats would choose the "fatally flawed" Hillary Clinton as their candidate”."
If you bother to read some polls and a few American newspapers you will see that Hillary Clinton have the highest negatives of all the contenders, both Republican and Democratic. 40-45% frequently says they would never vote for her.
You see, Karl Rove actually knows what he is talking about.
Your anti-Mitt animus is so manifest and so irrational that one is tempted to seek a psychosexual explanation for it.
Post a Comment