Super Tuesday results

Well, not all of the results are in as I write this but most of them are. After last night, CNN predicts that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton leads the delegate race 825 to 732 over Barack Obama. On the Republican side, it is John McCain with 615, Mitt Romney with 268 and Mike Huckabee with 169.

In his speech last night, McCain used the term “frontrunner” for the first time. Given the nature of the winner-take-all states involved, I’d say its a pretty good bet that McCain will be the nominee. I’m a little surprised that Republican voters are not up in arms about such allocation of delegates. It seems quite un-democratic. If the Republicans used a different allocation, I doubt we’d be talking about McCain being the frontrunner at this point.

The race on the Democratic side is not over but Clinton remains in the lead. Her win in Massachusetts was quite telling of the strength of her candidacy: despite receiving the endorsements of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the governor, Obama managed to garner only 41% of the vote.

In watching the coverage last night and reading through the various postings, one thing emerged that I would like to look further into. It was said that Clinton won the states where there were primaries while Obama won the states where there were caucuses. I haven’t done a state-by-state breakdown of this (and if it is on the web somewhere, somebody please link it) but on the surface, this appears to be the case. What that says about our democratic process – as well as the larger issue of electability – is a topic for another post, since I’ve got to get to work 😦 Political Blogger Alliance

19 thoughts on “Super Tuesday results

  1. Found on Raising Kaine:

    We’ve heard so often the charges of racism attached to Hillary’s statement that although Martin Luther King built the foundation for civil rights as we now know it, it took President Lyndon Johnson to cement the foundation to the edifice. For this she was castigated, trashed from pillar to post as having uttered a racist statement that demeaned the accomplishments of MLK. For this woman to be branded as she was can only be seen as sinful, considering her background and beliefs.
    Consider: Here is Obama, like MLK the larger than life preacher of hope, unity, ideals and transformation reaching out, like LBJ, for the presidential brass ring in order to…what?…cement the foundation of the ideals he speaks of to the edifice of legislative and regulatory force. For he knows and says that this, becoming President, is the path to success, to transformation.

    And yet, yet, when Hillary stated the obvious, the obvious that anyone faintly familiar with the process of government knows, and the obvious that Obama certainly understands, she is tarred, feathered and burned at the stake.

    If Obama’s spokespeople spoke truthfully when they attacked Hillary for that statement, if they truly believed that the message of MLK DIDN’T REQUIRE a Lyndon Johnson to carry it to fruition, that it could somehow effectuate itself, then why in hell is Obama running for president?

    He’s stated his message, he’s preached in the cadences of the churches he’s familiar with and has gotten the responses he has sought, and now he could wait for his ideas to permeate society, as MLK might have done–and waited forever in the process.

    NO! He’s running because he knows that it takes a congressional and presidential village to raise a transformation “child.” And he knows, therefore, and his insiders know, therefore, that Hillary was not disrespecting or demeaning or diminishing ANYTHING that MLK proposed in his life’s teachings. The attack on her was coldly deliberate and it changed the tenor and direction of the race for the presidency, injecting a foul atmosphere into what should have been a fair and hard-fought battle.

  2. Those are a lot of words wasted on a cheap rhetorical point. It was an inartfully delivered statement on Clinton’s part, and a transparent ploy of an attack on Obama’s (people’s) part. No one with a lick of sense thinks it a serious point.

  3. I don’t understand all the kvetching. The various state parties have decided how to allocate their delegates. Some Republican parties went with winner take all. So what? Right now, they look pretty smart. The GOP will likely have its nominee long before the Dems will.

    As for the superdelegates, once again I say big deal. If Clinton and Obama remain as close as they are now, letting elected leaders and party insiders have a say does not seem to me to be the worst idea ever. These are the leaders of your party. Don’t you trust their judgment at all?

Comments are closed.