Just as expected, Obama begins his run with three victories today:
Washington (96% reporting)
- Obama – 68%
- Clinton – 31%
Nebraska (99% reporting)
- Obama – 68%
- Clinton – 32%
Louisiana only has 4% reporting currently, but Obama already has a 15% lead there to go with his comfortable lead in the exit polls. So it looks like Hillary is the loser today on the Dem side – although Obama is expected to perform better in caucuses than primaries. Maine, DC, Maryland, and Virginia are coming up in the next three days, and Obama is expected to win all four of those contests as well.
[UPDATE: With 22% reporting in Louisiana, Obama has maintained his 15% lead, 53-38 over Hillary. It's just about time to call that one.]
[UPDATE: It's official - Louisiana is being called for Obama.]
February 9th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Hello President Obama.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Obama was trending up before super Tuesday to come even with Clinton, but I think his trend lines will continue, allowing him to break away from Hillary sooner than expected.
The MSM lovefest with McCain is just about over, with Obama being the new object of affection.
It will be interesting to see how McCain fares when he is consistently ripped on as was Romney.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“Wah, the MSM was mean to Romney.”
Please, give it a rest.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Huck might SWEEP tonight.
United Republican party? Yeah, right.
I think the results tonight are proof positive that Romney vs. McCain, with no Huck = ROMNEY.
Oh well. Obama will take all comers. Better for Mitt in 2012.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Another GOP reality check:
In Red State Louisiana, with 74% reporting, Hillary Clinton (who has only managed 39% of the Dem vote) has received more votes than McCain and Huckabee COMBINED!
Not looking good for team GOP in 2008 . . . sad to say.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
My hometown district voted for Obama 53% to 47%, The Omaha district voted for Obama 77% – 23%, and the Lincoln district, where I’m going to school, voted for 63 – 34% for Obama (these districts aren’t just Lincoln or Omaha, but I think there the majority, The Omaha district went 77% – 23% for Obama – it appears the more rural you get the more pro Clinton it gets.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Of course the Dems actually have a race going on and the Republicans don’t have a race – that just might have a little to do with it.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Correction the 1st District or Lincoln district was 65% pro Obama.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Even though these are smaller contests for the dems, the headlines “Obama Sweeps” gotta hurt Clinton going into Tuesday. The three widely read papers – Wash Post, Wash Times, and Baltimore Sun – are certain to feature Obama’s victories prominently on the most widely read day (Sunday) with little time for her to spin it.
I bet some Obama supporters will begin calling for dems to unify around Obama to prevent a messy convention.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
A race?
Believe me, no Huckabee supporter stayed home because we “don’t have a race” . . .
And the same for McCain supporters.
Because no delegates are awarded unless you get to 51% it could be argued that those camps would have been working EXTRA HARD to GOTV today. There was definitely “a race” between those two today, but there are relatively few supporters.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
McCain supporters would stay home because we don’t have a race, obviously its easier to accept victory than defeat.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
It doesn’t matter if it was close in Louisianna you’re still going to have a lot of Republicans staying home because they figure the nomineee is allready decided. Besides you have all of your Romney supporters staying home – I don’t know if they particularly care between Huck and McCain – same for the candidates of all the other major candidates. Half of the major campaigns in the Republican party being gone and the other being seen as having no shot is going to effect turnout.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The idea that the GOP race should be getting just as many voters as the Dem race when are race is seen by many as over seems kind of ridiculous.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
#13–the problem is that this disparity in R/D voter turnout has been evident throughout the primary season–beginning in Iowa. I don’t believe there has been a state in which both parties have held primaries in which there have not been substantially more Dems voting than Republicans. It is not a recent phenomenon.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Looks like Hillary will get a respectable amount of delegates out of Louisiana.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
14, True and that’s a good point, but the disparity between the two parties now doesn’t mean that much.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:07 am
MAKE SURE TLG SEES THIS VIDEO!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhqmY_CEF_4
With his LOVE for the Romney sledding video I just thought it would make his day.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:15 am
#14 . . . yep, that was my point.
And, LA today was a two-man race on BOTH sides (yes, I consider Hillary a man) . . . so turnout could/should have been similar.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Senator Obama…..Senator Palpatine…….President Palpatine…..President Obama……
….Emperor Palpatine…..Emperor ?…………….good god the only statist, collectivist, non-individualist, envy based concept that he didn’t refer to in his speech tonight was retaking the Rhineland
February 10th, 2008 at 12:47 am
A two man race in a party that is still way up in the air as to who is going to win the nomination, and a two party race in a party where the race has allready been decided are not comparable.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Anyone know what to expect out of Maine tomorrow?
February 10th, 2008 at 1:06 am
here are just a few reasons why Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in the general…
1. voter turnout and enthusiasm is much higher with the Dems (by a mile)
2. He can raise a Ton of money, McCain has shown he cant
3. He is 20 something years younger and it shows
4. He fills auditoriums of 17000-20000+
5. McCain is weak in the mountain west states, in the south, and in other parts of the country
6. The economy will be the paramount issue, and having Greenspans book, while admitting the economy is something you know little about, is a bad sign
Ill leave it at that for now. I think its going to be a very uphill battle for McCain. Funny really since his “electablity” was the reason many supported him. I cant wait to compare the late summer state polls showing Mccain getting waxed by obama, and compare them to the many threads of head to head polls in 07 showing MCCain leading that Sampo, LJ, and others shouted from the roof tops to get us to support McCain.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:12 am
#22, Kerry showed us that we should tend to vote with our conscience. Goldwater was unelectable, but he lit a fire under the ass of the GOP, and Reagan was the result.
Romney may have lost, but he was the best candidate we had. Now we’re going to get smashed.
Romney ‘12!
February 10th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Kevin, I agree. Romney in 12. What a different campaign it will be. He should have universal name ID by then and wont have to spend zillions on introducing himself. He will take this campaign, disect it, learn from it, and do it better next time. Thats his approach to anything. Until that time, we have to put up with a liberal in office (John McHillary Obama).
February 10th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Husky, can you imagine the potency of a Romney message, repeating Reagan’s “Government IS the problem” mantra should a JoHillary McBama presidency result in a giant government size increase, and a still weakened economy?
Could be a perfect storm.
OR, Obama (and I do think it will be Obama) could be a great president, with restraint. We don’t know.
What I do know, is I won’t sacrifice the future of the party by voting for it not matter what.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:23 am
*no matter what.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Husky its nice to see you’re excited about Obama winning. Obama beating McCain will not negate anything that has been said about McCain’s electability. Nobody that I know of said that McCain was a sure thing to win the general, he just had a better chance. And if McCain loses in a landslide to Obama, I bet Romney would have won in a bigger landslide. You crow all you want about McCain losing if he loses, but the point is the Dems had a really really good chance at winning no matter who we put up and just because our candidate loses doesn’t mean we didn’t put up the most electable candidate.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:04 am
17 — Oooooh!!!
February 10th, 2008 at 2:33 am
According to the greenpapers, if you add up the numbers, Obama picked up just a total of 29 net delegates tonight on Hillary.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:37 am
CNN has a bigger margin in Washington — 35-14 (they might have some super delegate pledges included)
February 10th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Uh, and where are your reports on the Republican race?
Kansas– Huck won. (That’s WITH Brownback having endorsed McCain, btw.)
Louisiana– Huck won.
Washington– still too close to call…
hmmm…. R408, your bias is showing once again…
February 10th, 2008 at 3:01 am
That doesn’t follow. If Romney were the best candidate we had, then Romney would have won. Part of what it means to be a good candidate is that people like you, believe in you, and want to vote for you.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:14 am
If they liked him and believed in him why did he lose in IA and NH where he spent millions, outadvertised everyone else combined and practically lived in the states for a year? Why did he get creamed by Huckabee in IA and lose to McCainin NH?
Why did he only get 15% in SC after outspending and out advertising everyone?
Why did he lose in FL and CA and NY and IL and MO and all over the South?
Why did he only win 3 of 19 primaries? Those being MA, UT and MI, his 3 “home states”?
Obama would have destroyed Willard by at least 10 pts nationally and at least 100 EV if not far more.
McCain at least has a chance and depending on the VP and how things go in the economy and the news, a good chance.
I think he has a better chance against Hillary, but it’s looking tough for her. Although I will never count out the Clintons. I think she can win TX and at least force it to the convention.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Is this going to go on until 2012?
February 10th, 2008 at 3:19 am
McCain won Washington according to the Washington Republican Party.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:37 am
32/33, how about…evangelicals are morons? They went with a guy who played identity politics, who had no real ideas save a tax plan that will NEVER happen, all because he was more Christian?
If you apply your logic to 1976, Reagan wasn’t the best candidate; he, in fact, obviously was.
Favorite =/= best.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:42 am
WHAT??? Huckabee is STILL WINNING??? AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
P.S. Told you so.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:06 am
All this premature talk about the general makes me queasy. Its February and we have not only the primaries to complete, but VP selections, intense media scrutiny, some dirt flying (including a lot of bs), a revelation or two, and the conventions.
I do hope the Clinton reign of terror is over. Most voters don’t pay as much attention to the delegates won at to the states won and Clinton getting swept creates news and momentum toward Obama. But I agree with those who say hope is not enough so my sister and I are planning to canvass for Obama today in Maryland.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:11 am
I think it’s telling that Huckabee won in Kansas:
* a state where Sen. McCain had received an endorsement from Brownback (so much for his veep chances),
* RIGHT after being hailed as the clear Republican choice by virtually EVERY media outlet in America
Clearly, Huckabee support runs deep in Kansas, and McCain’s not the only choice. We’ll see if other states will follow their lead, but regardless, McCain’s got to be considering Huck as veep when he can bring states like Kansas, even when endorsements and media coverage can’t do it for him.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Can you say voter turn out? Republicans can not even get out the base for McCain and Huckabee.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Huckabee would be the worst possible choice for VEEP. He brings nothing to table.
Mitt is the only guy that can strengthen the party. He would have been the nominee if it were not for team tactics, and MSM’s love affair with Huckabee, then McCain at strategic times. Mitt was probably the best candidate in the last 100 years, or maybe ever. By an overwhelming majority, California voters indicated that they preferred Mitt over McCain, but considered McCain more electable. These stupid polls on electability are driven by the TV pundits and newscasters inserting their wishes on the population. Too bad we as a party are stupid enough to let them drive us.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am
as much as i hate to argue for Huck …he is the only republican who got any buzz going among his base…especially if its obama, huckster brings a ton because he gets out southern votes in those states that the gop can’t afford to lose (broder states) and potentially wins them Missouri and Iowa…that alone, i am sorry to say, is reason enough for Mccain to take him….i really wish i could see the electoral map differently but huck is mccains only chance
February 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
#43 I see McCain taking Huckabee as VP and Huckabee does add the southern states. However, I do not see a McCain/ Huckabee offering any real chance of beating Obama or Clinton. McCain/Huckabee strong on the war in Iraq but weak on defense, weak on economics, weak on the constitution, and Huckabee not enough separation of church and state. I do not see any cross over from the dem party. We do not even have our own party showing up to vote for either of these candidates.
This McCain/Huckabee is the dream team for the DEMS to go against.
Our country is going into a depression financially and we bring this ticket to the election and the ‘Hope’ of Obama or health insurance for all will win this election of economics.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Obama, McCain win Washington state caucuses
Illinois senator enjoys more than 2-1 edge; GOP front-runner emerges from four-way battle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350752_caucuses09.html
February 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Geez. I thought that after Romney dropped out, the Rombots on here would ease up a bit.. But good grief. How long are we going to have to listen to this nonsense about the GOP rejecting the best candidate? (Some of you guys go further than that and say “the perfect candidate.”) Comparing Romney to Goldwater in 1964 or Reagan in 1976 is absurd. Those men revolutionized the conservative movement. What has Romney done? If we do get rolled in the general and have to wait till 2012, I would hope that we have someone a heck of a lot more exciting than Willard Romney to get us back on track. Voters just don’t like the guy, and that’s still going to be the case in four years.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
#44 Thanks for sharing, but obviously the voters are not fully behind McCain or Huckabee as well. We most likely we will get rolled in the general. Probably the reason the Romney people have been hanging on to their candidate is because he was the ‘nerd’ that could have solved many problems to the satisfaction of the party. He wasn’t the right religion, he was willing to self fund, he didn’t make alliances, he wasn’t an insider with connections,he wasn’t the MSM choice and the victim of several diry tricks. All of those worked against him. If Romney decides to run in 2012, which I doubt, hopefully,the country will be looking for a problem solver instead of a corrupt politican.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
[...] In Saturday’s electoral contests, Mike Huckabee came awful close to sweeping John McCain, as Barack Obama did to her royal highness, Hillary Clinton. As the day wound down, the remaining question mark was [...]