Super Tuesday

[blueerica]

I'm pretty certain it's a shot at McCain. She's pretty hard-core conservative, and perhaps to her, she'd rather have a Dem in office than someone who will be only half-a$$ed about her conservative agenda.

[Alex]

McCain should just be happy that Romney and Huckabee are splitting the content conservative vote. If either of them had stepped out a couple weeks ago it is hard to imagine the same result for McCain last night.

It is amazing to me that we're so solidly in the rut of producing such evenly split election results. Even when the election is limited to one half of the spectrum it splits down the middle. In pledged delegates Obaman and Clinton are essentially tied. In total votes cast yesterday they were with 200,000 of each other (slight lead to Clinton).

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

He thinks she's pulling some reverse psychology. "If I say I support Hillary, then perhaps the Dems will not nominate Hillary because they hate me so much."

I think it was more a shot at McCain than an endorsement of Hillary.

I see.

Yes, it is definately a shot at McCain and certainly not an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

McCain should just be happy that Romney and Huckabee are splitting the content conservative vote. If either of them had stepped out a couple weeks ago it is hard to imagine the same result for McCain last night.

I'm sure he is. Just as Dubya must have been glad Ralph Nader was in the race in 2000. That's just the way it goes when more than one candidate appeals to the same constituency, but the benefit to the remaining candidate is hardly unfair or undeserved simply because other candidates split up certain votes.

[Alex]

In no way to I mean to imply it is unfair. Any more than it is unfair that Hillary's anointment to the White House ran into the unexpected speed bump (or crash wall, depending) of Barrak Obama.

I just really don't see how McCain can win the general (he won't motivate the core to get out and vote like Bush did and while Democrats may like him they're not going to forego Clinton/Obama to vote for him) and if it weren't for this he'd be in bad shape.

The vagaries of historical Brownian motion. Countless small things that seemingless conspire to produce an otherwise unexpected result.

[innerSpaceman]

Au Contraire, tons of Independents vote for McCain. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, he stands a decent chance. If it's Obama, who also gets those same Independents, McCain would be toast.


I'm not saying McCain would win against Clinton, but he would have a far better chance against her than against Obama.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I might agree with you GD, if I didn't honestly feel that everything on their side of the aisle is wrong, bordering on evil.

That is sad. You have wholesale dismissed every single Republican/Conservative. Nice to know you have the capacity for compromise.

And I would say the same thing if you were speaking of Democrats/Liberals.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Au Contraire, tons of Independents vote for McCain. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, he stands a decent chance. If it's Obama, who also gets those same Independents, McCain would be toast.

Of course we're all just armchair quarterbacking but I disagree with this. To me, the benefit he gains from holding the moderate-right and independent votes (though I think either Clinton or Obama will likely do much better with true independents than McCain would, especially once the primaries are over and the Democrats stop talking about how moderate he is and begin treating him like a strong conservative) is more than offset by the depressing effect he'll have on turnout by the core of the Republican party.

When faced with the choice of a liberal under the label "Democrat" or a perceived liberal under the label "Republican" I think a lot of ideological Republicans are going to sit it out because at least with the Democrat the structures of your own party won't be hampering resistance to the policies.

But who knows, I was shocked by how strongly Clinton kept California since I have not seen a single visual sign of support for her but Obama is everywhere (though I am in one of the few counties that went for Obama instead of her).

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

That is sad. ... And I would say the same thing if you were speaking of Democrats/Liberals.

Um, please clarify. Would you say the same of Democrats/Liberals? And if so, how is my saying it about Republicans/conservatives sad?

BTW, read my post again. I was talking about Republicans in government, NOT Republican citizens.

[innerSpaceman]

And now, to Alex:

Well, Republicans are likely no stranger to voting against one candidate rather than for another.

Perhaps John McCain can't bring out the Republican base ... but Hillary Clinton can and will.


As for the recent California vote .... I'm not sure what you mean by "visual" support. But Hillary Clinton doesn't need any. Her support here runs deep and far back. There was no need for rallies, appearances, much TV or press coverage. She's world-famous, and well-liked among many Democrats ... of which there are a few, and with their own minds and memories, here in California.