Many of you are calling this the Potomac Primaries, but I live in central Virginia and I prefer to use the Chesapeake Bay as the shared geographical feature of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. But whatever you call it, the results were interesting.
Here is Virginia, the vote count is somewhere in this ball park:
Obama- 610,000+
Clinton- 340,000+
McCain- 240,000+
Huckabee- 195,000+
So far, it looks like the Maryland and Washington, D.C. vote counts are going to be fairly similar to this pattern. You immediately notice a couple things. Obama nearly doubled the vote count of Clinton. And the Dems combined vote count nearly doubled the vote count of the combined Republican candidates. Virginia has voted Republican in the last several Presidential Elections. So what gives with the poor turnout for Republicans? Nobody exciting to vote for? Or is it that McCain is so far ahead by virtue of the winner take all rules of the Republican primaries that there is no point to bother voting?
It is noteworthy that those rules completely change the realities of the Republican race- it is sort of a ratification process of super tuesday, whereas the Democrat primaries are likely to result in Clinton and Obama entering the convention without a clear edge in delegate count. Obama will probably be ahead- he took the lead today. But he won't have enough to put him over the top.
Question though: if Obama continues to win primaries by large numbers over Clinton, plus bury mcCain in terms of voter turnout, how can the Democratic Convention deny him the nomination, even if he lacks enough delegates?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Clearly the Democrats are more energized than the Republicans this year. It seems to be an extension of the 2006 revolt against the current Administration. For a state (commonwealth) like Virginia to further shift left is a bad sign for the Republicans. Ironically, despite the conservatives distaste for McCain - he is probably their best hope for keeping the White House in the current climate.
As for Obama/Clinton...I think it hinges completely on Ohio/Texas on March 4th. Despite the momentum he has built up recently, Obama needs to show he can win the "big states" with big delegate counts. Given the ample amount of time he has between now and then there is no reason he can't do it - IF his message is what the voters want. If on the other hand Hillary is able to continue her Super Tuesday trend of winning the big delegate states, then I'd have to say she will eventually get the nomination by the superdelegate margins just before the convention.
10 4 u
Like all of you, I wonder and speculate to myself about the possible running mates for both parties. But I think I will keep quiet on that today.
Virginia did try to invade Maryland in 1862- Robert E. Lee's Army of northern Virginia met the Federal Army at Antietam. Despite the fact that General McClellan launched disjointed piecemeal attacks and sacrificed many lives, he did get the Confederates into a bad place and their smaller army barely survived the battle, and Lincoln was finally able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in the wake of the victory.
Interestingly, though the Confederates sang "Maryland my Maryland" on their march, the Marylanders did not welcome them, but seemed to view it as what it was, an invasion.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the 2008 election!
That is why I think Sen. Clinton is going to have to do something dramatic to eliminate the momentum factor. And, I hope that whatever they come up with, that it won't mess things up for the general.
And, yeah, I thought Sen. McCain's speech was directly targeting Sen. Obama. And, I think that Obama - if he is the nominee - will shred the points that McCain was trying to make. They were WEAK.
I also feel than any ticket with Clinton front or back is a loser for the Dems.
Agreed.
There is a huge irony lurking in Texas. We remain, to my personal chagrin, one of the reddest of red states. It would be truly funny, if a Clinton win in Texas, a state the Dems will assuredly lose in November, put Hillary over the top for the nomination.
I am curious as to why so many are so quick to want to pair up Clinton and Obama. The historical record would seem to indicate that VP is the political kiss of death. VP's that went on to win the presidency ....George Bush the First and he was defeated for a second term.. VP's that went on to lose:
Richard Nixon 1960
Gerald Ford 1976
Hubert Humphery 1968
Walter Mondale
Al Gore 2000
VP's Truman and Johnson did ascend to the presidency but NOT through the ballot box.
A VP slot will shipwreck Obama at an early age and I personally feel this is morally wrong.
Will McCain choose Condi Rice for Veep?
Would Hillary accept Veep?
Will the SUPER delegates vote for Hillary?
Obama Prez/Clinton Veep? It has no politcal benefit?
McCain/Huckabee if Obama gets the nod and McCain/Tim Pawlenty if Hillary gets the nod.
I also can't see Obama taking VP unless forced into it by the party. But then, if the party tried to force him I think he would tell them where they can put their idea.
I still think this comes down to Ohio and Texas. Hillary has set up shop there not because of some grand Guliani-esque strategy, but because that is her only option. She won the other big states and nothing will stop Obama's momentum. So she needs to hold the fort on the big state constituencies to win. If she wins Ohio and Texas she will likely win Pennsylvania and take the nomination by final superdelegate vote.
If Obama wins Ohio and Texas, he'll get the nomination going away (and Hillary will probably bow out at that point).
As for Lieberman as McCain's VP - I think I heard he said he would turn it down. But if he took it I think it would kill McCain's chances. Liebermam really isn't that different from McCain, so he doesn't add much to the ticket.
From what I have heard turnout has been far greater on the Democratic side of the race in general. I think Democrats are more excited about the race and their candidates.
"Question though: if Obama continues to win primaries by large numbers over Clinton, plus bury mcCain in terms of voter turnout, how can the Democratic Convention deny him the nomination, even if he lacks enough delegates?"
If his momentum continues he won't have to worry about the delegates. If the convention goes any way other than the way the voters have chosen, the Democratic Party will have made an incredible error. One that could cost them in the general election, particularly if an appealing middle ground/independent candidate like Mike Bloomberg enters the race.
Never say never when talking about who will accept a vice president position under what president. Remember Kennedy and Johnson? No one thought Kennedy would name Johnson and that Johnson would not accept. He held a more powerful position than vice president. The rest is history.