McCain’s Night

They just called California for McCain. Romney is over.

Make sure you listen to Rush tomorrow. Should be fun.

And Obama was the clear winner tonight on the Democratic side- most states, split the delegates, is surging in national polls, and most importantly, he won in places where Democrats struggle. There will be lots of Hillary spin, but I think it is clear Obama is the big winner tonight for the Democratic party.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






103 replies
  1. 1
    KCinDC says:

    I’m a strong supporter of Obama, but “won in places where Democrats struggle” seems like a silly point. He won in a Democratic primary in places where Democrats struggle to win the general election. A Democrat always wins the Democratic primary, no matter how red the state is. I don’t think it means much. I’m more impressed by the fact that he’s been endorsed by lots of red-state politicians who would be running down the ticket from him.

  2. 2
    Ron M says:

    Love how the media is spinning this one. Hillary holds onto her “firewall” states and somehow winds up as the winner for the night.

    5 weeks back if you knew nothing else other than obama taking mizzou, minnesota, connecticut, who would be the big winner?

    You’re not coming out on top if you’re just holding onto states you were expected to win all along.

  3. 3
    Jupiter says:

    Obama, the CLEAR winner? I’m just glad he was able to survive the night with all of those big states going to Hillary. Still, both candidates are strong enough to extend the race into March.

  4. 4
    Daniel Munz says:

    KCinDC, that’s good catch — I’ve been marvelling at the number of TV talking heads who’ve evinced shock that a Democrat won the Democratic primary!

    That said, I think that winning MO and CO (and, probably, VA on 2/12) gives Obama a plausible storyline as the guy who does well in the purple states that the right Dem actually could pick off in the general. This is particularly true anywhere that Obama’s winning margin clearly comes from independents — a group that Hillary would surely lose to McCain in November.

  5. 5
    empty says:

    And Obama was the clear winner tonight

    Boy, John when you drink the Koolaid you really drink the KoolAid!

  6. 6
    Gemina13 says:

    I wish Obama had won Arizona, but there are a lot of seniors who voted for Hillary. I ought to know; my mother’s 78, and proudly cast her ballot for her.

    I’m not completely against the idea of Hillary as President. I think she’s tough, shrewd, and capable of holding her own. That said, I think Obama may be the person to get us out of the shit the GOP have buried us in for the last 7 years.

    And if you heard the speech Obama gave tonight me, then, like me, you’re probably numb with awe. Charismatic? Fuck me, he’s as magnetic as a cargo of lodestones. It’s going to be a long, bloody fight until the Democratic Convention.

  7. 7
    MNPundit says:

    Chuck Todd is claiming that at the end of the night the count will be HRC 837, Obama 841.

    Won on delegates. Even with the beating in California?

    Holy. Shit. Tomorrow morning $100 to Obama. But all three states I am involved with, ND, MN, IA all went for him. What more can I do now but money?

  8. 8
    Splitting Image says:

    Actually, the big story tonight is probably the Missouri primary.

    Once again, a race got called too quickly and turned out not to be over until the last vote got counted. Since the delegates are proportional, it won’t be as big a difference as a winner-take-all would be, but still, can’t they learn their lesson?

    I think McCain and Obama are the big winners. Obviously, if Romney drops out, McCain is the Republican nominee, but I think that if Obama comes out of tonight level with Clinton in terms of delegates, I think he’s got it. He’ll have dodged the big bullet (“Clinton will win big in New York & California on Super Tuesday”) and the rest of the schedule looks kinder to him than to her (at least to me).

    As I write this, Yahoo just took the “Clinton wins Missouri” link off of their front page. *sigh* In the old days, you went to press and announced to the world how dumb you were on the front page. Now you quietly fix your mistakes and pretend it never happened. I guess that’s progress.

  9. 9

    if Romney drops out

    We tuned into the PBS coverage a few minutes late and heard Shields and Brooks talking about how hard a person takes it when he admits that he’s lost a presidential campaign . . . and my first thought was: Mittens dropped out!

    sigh

  10. 10
    scarshapedstar says:

    God dammit – I do not want to see Hillary vs. McCain.

    Here’s hoping Obama does whatever it takes…

  11. 11
    matt says:

    As I write this, Yahoo just took the “Clinton wins Missouri” link off of their front page

    We’ll they’ve replaced it with “Clinton’s huge victory” and “Clinton deals big blow to Barack Obama.” So it’s all good.

  12. 12

    […] Update II:  John Cole: “Make sure you listen to Rush tomorrow. Should be fun.”  […]

  13. 13
    SmilingPolitely says:

    Obama may be the victor in both delegate and state counts by the time the night is up?!

    Eat that shit, Hillary!

  14. 14
    over it says:

    I love the fact that Obama has won Missouri….a couple hours after the networks called it for Hillary.

    I don’t see any way to legitimately spin this for Hillary. A few short weeks ago she was ahead by double digits in almost every state. Every day that goes by, Obama’s numbers (and dollars) rise. I don’t see how she will keep up.

    That being said…she is a Clinton. So, who the hell knows what will happen.

  15. 15
    LiberalTarian says:

    I am clearly not as invested as some people in my candidate of choice.

    But, I can clearly state, I care less about who gets the nomination than making damn sure the Democratic nominee becomes president. I’ll vote for the nominee … but I’m not putting out cash until the nominee is certain.

  16. 16
    Pb says:

    John’s got it right–Clinton needed to do a lot better, and she didn’t. Obama should have at least a good month or so up ahead, due to the primary schedule. Here’s how Kos put it, recently:

    For Obama, his task for Tuesday is simply to survive. He needs to finish within 200 delegates of Clinton to keep it close, because the rest of the month is tailor made for Obama — Louisiana primary and Nebraska and Washington caucuses on Saturday, February 9th, Maine caucuses on Sunday February 10, the Beltway Primary on February 12 — DC, Maryland, and Virginia, and Hawaii and Wisconsin the next Tuesday, February 19. Of those states, only Maine might prove kind to Hillary (though we haven’t had any polling since October of last year, when Hillary had a commanding 46-10 lead). The rest — 563 delegates’ worth of contests, will favor Obama heavily.

    So Hillary’s task is to defeat Obama decisively on Tuesday. If she can’t manage that, then her plan B is to survive February to fight in March. On Tuesday the 4th, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont go to the polls. Vermont appears the most competitive right now, though that will change with a couple of weeks to campaign in these states. Winning Ohio, in particular will be important for propaganda purposes.

  17. 17

    Clinton is touted as tough, I don’t know on what particular evidence. On the othe hand, let’s talk about a black politician…

  18. 18
    Gemina13 says:

    We’re seeing the Clinton camp’s attempt to spin gold out of mud, but Hillary is about to be beat. She’s losing money and a lot of glory to Obama. Any momentum she had died with the final call for Missouri.

    The Clinton camp may yet pull some dirty tricks, but they should consider carefully whether they’d be worth it. Instead of political gamesmanship, some of their supporters could see it as mere fuckwittery, and react accordingly.

  19. 19
    dslak says:

    As an argument against racism making a differene in this campaign, you can see at the NYT that, among other things, Obama slaughtered Clinton in Idaho. Idaho is also a home to the racist Christian Identity Movement, so such a large victory for him there is significant.

  20. 20
    Mike P. says:

    As an Obama supporter (but in no way a Hillary hater), I’m concerned. I’m concerned with whose votes Obama is getting, and whose he is not. I find the wins he has to be damninf with faint praise, in a sense, once the underlying voters and their locations are actually scrutinized. To put it simply, maybe the “Bradley effect” is more real – even among Dems – than I’d like to admit. It is worrisome going into the national race.

  21. 21
    myiq2xu says:

    And Obama was the clear winner tonight on the Democratic side- most states, split the delegates, is surging in national polls, and most importantly, he won in places where Democrats struggle. There will be lots of Hillary spin, but I think it is clear Obama is the big winner tonight for the Democratic party.

    Clinton got the most votes and won the big states, Obama got more states but most of them smaller. They split the delgates.

    There is already lots of spin on both sides, but no “big winner.”

    All I know is that I’ll be voting for the Democrat in November, and I fully expect the Democrat to win.

  22. 22
    dslak says:

    All I know is that I’ll be voting for the Democrat in November, and I fully expect the Democrat to win.

    Amen to that!

  23. 23
    ThymeZone says:

    I wish Obama had won Arizona, but there are a lot of seniors who voted for Hillary.

    Phoenix polling place story:

    Woman ahead of me in line produces her AZ drivers license and her Voter Registration card.

    Woman checking the IDs announces that she doesn’t have enough ID.

    What? sez my neighbor.

    The address on your license does not match the one on your registration card.

    They actually talked her into digging for and producing another piece of ID. The laminated card with the ID requirement is right in front of these people, it says NOTHING about matching addresses. It says that an AZ DL is acceptable ID if it has a photo and has not expired. Period.

    So I say to the poll worker, excuse me, your instructions right here say nothing about matching addresses. Or anything about the address on the license.

    Well, the poll worker says, that information is not complete.

    What? says I. Not complete? This is the information they sent us in the mail. It’s the information on the Secretary of State’s website that explains the ID requirement. How can it be not complete?

    Well, the poll worker says, it’s more complicated than that.

    No, says I. It’s not. You can’t expect people to honor a requirement that is different from every official version they have seen before they walk in here.

    They let her vote, after they talked it over among themselves and came up with some bogus rationale.

    My question is, where do they find these morons who work at the polls? And who instructs them?

    BTW, my neighbor who went through this ordeal?

    Black. The poll workers? White.

    Just tellin it like it is, people.

  24. 24
    KT says:

    Mike P: As an Obama supporter (but in no way a Hillary hater), I’m concerned. I’m concerned with whose votes Obama is getting, and whose he is not.

    I’m the reverse. A Hillary supporter who will have no problem voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. I just think Hillary would be better at this time.

    What worries me though are the spreads. Except for 3 states, the spreads between Obama and Hillary are dramatic. Obama’s average over Clinton is 28 percent while Hillary’s over Obama is 18 percent (Based on CNN’s numbers) This indicates to me a much stronger preference by Obama voters than Hillary voters and might point to trouble should Hillary get the nomination.

    Would people who feel so strongly about Obama be able to vote for Hillary even if it’s a “hold your nose” vote?

    I freely admit that you don’t get the goose bumps from Hillary speeches but will Obama voters be able to settle for the steak without the sizzle? I don’t know. Particularly with young voters who see Obama as the next JFK.

  25. 25
    Pelikan says:

    You know, whoever wins this shebang should find some place for their opponent in the next (Zeus willing) administration, these are two sharp politicians. Keepers, if you will.

    Hell if nothing else, Hillary could keep in the cameras to distract the rightwing twits whilst Pres. Obama gets something progessive done for once.

  26. 26
    ThymeZone says:

    I have to agree with John. Obama is the big winner, he is standing toe to toe with the darling of the establishment and the darling of the big money interests and the lady with the former president husband, and holding his own.

    The trend lines have all been away from Clinton recently, and America loves an underdog, especially a classy underdog who can come back.

    Obama raised more money in January than McCain raised all last year. The guy inspires people. The only thing Clinton inspires me to do is go to Walgreens and get earplugs.

  27. 27
    LiberalTarian says:

    Thanks for giving them what for TZ.

    But, it does argue for foreign election observers, doesn’t it?

  28. 28
    ThymeZone says:

    it does argue for foreign election observers, doesn’t it?

    Heh. That it does!

    Welp, I can’t sleep tonite and I watched too much cable election news, my head is abuzz with the voice of Tweety and Wolf Fucking Blitzer, who I think should be rendered to some antarctic Russian facility as soon as possible. But I have to work tomorrow and must try to get some sleep.

    If anybody is still up, don’t forget to kick myiq in the junk before you turn the lights out.

  29. 29
    LiberalTarian says:

    So, I went to google US news expecting Super Tuesday to be at the top of the page … but, 18 people dead in storms in the south instead.

    Bummer. My prayers for the South.

    Remember–we vote Democratic to fix FEMA and all the other eviscerated federal agency bullshit by GW Bush and Co.

  30. 30
    KG says:

    Just checked the California Secretary of State’s returns, with about half the vote in, McCain has swept almost every congressional district – the only one’s he hasn’t won have no reported results. Yeah, i’d say Romney is done.

    That’s done: D-U-N.

  31. 31
    myiq2xu says:

    If anybody is still up, don’t forget to kick myiq in the junk before you turn the lights out.

    lol

  32. 32
    KT says:

    Pelikan: You know, whoever wins this shebang should find some place for their opponent in the next (Zeus willing) administration, these are two sharp politicians. Keepers, if you will.

    Agreed. If Hillary gets the nomination, I hope the first thing she does, even before her acceptance speech, is walk over to Obama and offer him any job in her administration he wants. VP you got it. Secretary of State. It’s yours. Whatever he wants.

    The second thing she should do is offer John Edwards the Attorney General spot. With a team like that, I think we’d see a landslide of the order of 1984’s Reagan v.s. Mondale.

  33. 33
    dslak says:

    I got up at 6:30 here in the UK to check the results, but it’s still in limbo. Now I’m torn between obsessively checking the results, or getting some work done on my thesis.

  34. 34
    myiq2xu says:

    CNN is reporting that Hillary edged out Obama for the youth vote in California and Massachusetts.

  35. 35
    srv says:

    darling of the establishment and the darling of the big money interests

    Right. Once again, Obama transcends reality, putting Romneys big money interests to shame.

    New word: Jackalopony.

  36. 36
    LiberalTarian says:

    So, I was checking out how many people in Cali voted Dem v. Republican, and it looks about 2:1.

    Then, being Montana, I looked at how many people voted …

    1500 people, total, give or take 100.

    OMG. I am from BFE.

  37. 37
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Yup John, Obama is on the Magical Unity Pony and they are riding high. A virtual tie or a squeaker win over Hillary is a huge deal for Obama. Obama winning Idaho? I grew up across from State Line, Idaho (panhandle area, near the skinheads who are just to the northeast of there) and that is a REDneck northern state (Hmm, I was born in Boise, oops!). That he blew her out there was interesting.

    I saw the ‘Hillary wins Missouri!’ and even I knew that it was favoring Obama. Matthews was basically talking Hillary up all evening, and damn can he get tiring to listen to real fast.

    Hillary will always get Democratic votes in the general, but she feeds into the Republican anger voter who will vote just to vote against her. Obama does not have that baggage, and the results in some of the lesser states today shows that Obama has huge crossover appeal. That and the fact that Obama is bringing in new, young voters. For that reason alone, I believe that Obama is much more electable than Hillary is, and that he would win with a larger share of the total vote since he is drawing in new voters and he is appealing to some Republican voters.

    I view this latest primary as a rebuke of the idea of a Clinton presidency. By all rights, if Hillary was the hot item for office then she should have handily won this latest round. No matter how you look at it, from whatever angle, she lost.

    Personally, I am pleased as I would rather vote for Obama and hope for something better than we have been getting than vote for Hillary and pretty much already know what to expect (and not liking it).

  38. 38
    ninerdave says:

    I have to agree with John. Obama is the big winner, he is standing toe to toe with the darling of the establishment and the darling of the big money interests and the lady with the former president husband, and holding his own.

    Yup, and the coming elections favor Obama as does his fund raising. Obama’s goal was to keep it close within 100 delegates. Looks like he’s going to do that. Hillary will now have to ride out Feb, and hope for a comeback in March. That’s a lot of MObama to over come.

    Oh did I mention yet another hell of a speech by Obama tonight.

  39. 39
    myiq2xu says:

    I’m really surprised at Hillary’s margin of victory in California 53%-38% with 44% precincts reporting)

    For the last week is was predicted to be a nail-biter and Zogby said Obama was leading.

    What happened to his surge and momentum? Was it illusory?

  40. 40
    mac says:

    Certainly Hillary is not a big winner tonight. And I see the point (of various commenters and Big Tent Democrat) about Obama taking red states won’t matter in the general election, but this kind of misses the point: does anybody really think McCain is going to win in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, or California if Obama is his opponent rather than HRC? In this sense, the votes in really blue states matter just as little as the ones in Idaho.

  41. 41
    dslak says:

    For the last week is was predicted to be a nail-biter and Zogby said Obama was leading.

    Myiq2xu, you’re now just repeating Clinton campaign talking points.

    The Zogby/SurveyUSA poll difference, which had each respective candidate up by about 10% (Zobgy with Obama, the other with Clinton) was known about earlier this week. You don’t like it when Obamamaniacs here just give you empty platitudes. Spare the rest of us Hillary’s.

  42. 42
    ninerdave says:

    I stopped by RedState for fun…

    While they were talking specifically about Super Tuesday, I thought their headline sums up “conservatives” really well…

    “Knowledge Brings Fear”

  43. 43
    Jimitha says:

    If recent polls are any indication, the only person surprised at a Clinton victory in California is Zogby himself.

  44. 44
    KG says:

    So, I was checking out how many people in Cali voted Dem v. Republican, and it looks about 2:1.

    Dems have a 43-33-20 advantage out here and the GOP closed their primary while the Dems left their’s open, so I can’t say I’m all that surprised. Plus, you know, actually being energized about candidates helps too.

  45. 45
    ninerdave says:

    I’m really surprised at Hillary’s margin of victory in California 53%-38% with 44% precincts reporting)

    For the last week is was predicted to be a nail-biter and Zogby said Obama was leading.

    What happened to his surge and momentum? Was it illusory?

    Well California is a large (25-30%) vote by mail state and most people voted 2 or more weeks ago.

    Polls were also all over the place in CA. As Josh at TPM said earlier today. Either SurveyUSA or Zogby is going to look dumb after CA’s votes come in. I believe the Field Poll showed Clinton ahead by 8 the other day.

  46. 46
    myiq2xu says:

    Myiq2xu, you’re now just repeating Clinton campaign talking points.

    Really? I must have missed the memo, cuz no one told me that.

    The biggest lead Hillary had in any poll I saw regarding California was 3%.

    Most polls were saying it was too close to call, but she won by double digits.

    So what happened?

  47. 47
    dslak says:

    Either SurveyUSA or Zogby is going to look dumb after CA’s votes come in.

    Why blame to polling methodology when you can go straight for the candidate who was up in one poll? I’m sure myiq2xu would agree that, had Obama won by double digits, Hillary’s support in California would be “illusory,” since SurveyUSA was predicting a big victory for her.

  48. 48
    Perry Como says:

    While they were talking specifically about Super Tuesday, I thought their headline sums up “conservatives” really well…

    “Knowledge Brings Fear”

    I stopped by there and my wife looked over at that graphic. “lol, wut?” was the reaction to that graphic.

    From my general impression, as a well respected crooner, it’s a dead heat with Obama gaining rapidly. Clinton needed to show an authoritative lead to clinch the super delegates, something she didn’t do tonight.

    There are some things to play out, but momentum is on Obama’s side.

    :Somebody up there likes me,
    somebody up there cares
    Somebody up there knows my fears,
    and hears my silent prayers:

  49. 49
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Hilary took the big urban/industrial states (except Obama’s own Illinois), Obama the rural ones. They are neck-and-neck in delegates (check over on TPM). A Clinton/Obama ticket (or vice versa) would probably be a winner. But will they cut a deal? Their politics are very similar, but can they deal at all, after the mud that has been slung? BTW, from my perspective, their politics are too conservative to be realistic; trying to be conservative in 2009 seems to me to be like trying to be conservative in 1932, or 1942.

  50. 50
    ninerdave says:

    So what happened?

    Well California is a large (25-30%) vote by mail state and most people voted 2 or more weeks ago.

  51. 51
    myiq2xu says:

    There’s one guarantee I can make right now about tonight’s results. They are going take make either Zogby or SurveyUSA look like complete fools. Which one I’m not completely sure, but definitely one of them.

    Consider this spread. Zogby has his final California number as Obama 49%, Clinton 36%. SurveyUSA has Obama 42%, Clinton 52%.
    From TPM:

    I think that may be the starkest spread; but down the line Zogby has immense momentum behind Obama and a series of results that would bring him in with something between a solid and a smashing win. Meanwhile, SurveyUSA has close to the exact opposite. Comparing these numbers to other polling organizations they’re both somewhat outliers, though Zogby’s results are closer to the average of other polls than SurveyUSA.

    For several weeks I’ve seen headline after headline showing that the race in California was going to be close. It wasn’t.

    Also from TPM:

    The polls have closed in California. As expected, it’s too close to call — on both sides.

    Promises to be a long night.

    –David Kurtz

    It makes me wonder how Obama would have done if he hadn’t been getting so much favorable press (traditional media and blogosphere) that pushed the meme that he had all the momentum. Every endorsement he received was “huge” but the Kennedys couldn’t even deliver Massachusetts.

    I’ve also been hearing the meme that Obama will do better once the voters get to know him.

    But he spent the most time and money the last couple in California where he was beaten decisively.

  52. 52
    TenguPhule says:

    Shitstain McCain, here comes the rain.

  53. 53
    myiq2xu says:

    Well California is a large (25-30%) vote by mail state and most people voted 2 or more weeks ago.

    Do you have any data as to how the absentee vote broke down between the candidates?

    The CNN exit polls shows Hillary won decisively with people who voted today, including edging out Obama for the “youth” vote.

  54. 54
    KG says:

    The only poll worth paying attention to in California is the Field Poll. In mid-Jan they had Clinton up 12, late-Jan they had her up 3, but the absentee ballots probably skewed the results.

    Zogby has been bad for a few years; SurveyUSA has been decent recently, so they were due for a few bad calls.

    Besides, with the system the Dems have, it wasn’t likely California’s delegates were going to go overwhelmingly to one side or the other.

  55. 55
    ninerdave says:

    Do you have any data as to how the absentee vote broke down between the candidates?

    No, but it’s not a stretch to believe that most of those were Clinton/Edwards voters.

    As of right now, not even 50% is in, in CA and it’s 53-40. That’s a split in CA.

    Remember it’s all about the delegates. Popular vote doesn’t mean shit. Obama needed to keep within about 100 delegates tonight. So far it looks like he’ll do that.

  56. 56
    dslak says:

    For several weeks I’ve seen headline after headline showing that the race in California was going to be close. It wasn’t.

    You’re certainly correct there, but “Obama’s lost his momentum!” is not the obvious explanation of why.

    I’ve also been hearing the meme that Obama will do better once the voters get to know him.

    Given that his support has been steadily increasing, this still seems to hold true. Note that “doing better” and “winning” are not synonymous.

    But he spent the most time and money the last couple in California where he was beaten decisively.

    In the popular vote, yes, but I think the fact that our system is usually winner-take-all has led the talking heads and others to overlook the fact that the Democratic primaries are generally proportional by county, so “winning” a state under these circumstances is not nearly as significant as usual, unless a candidate also carries most of the counties.

    Hillary wins California. That’s certainly significant, but why not think that it reflects something about her support and organization, rather than that Obama is now a has-been?

  57. 57
    Zuzu says:

    TZ –

    Admittedly without knowing all the details of this scenario, it actually may be a little more complicated than that.

    Assuming the voter registration card showed her residence (and possibly mailing) address, it is understandable that the workers would scrutinize a photo ID that showed a different address. It is not so much that the two documents don’t match each other as that the address on the photo ID didn’t match what was in the records. And if you go with a nonphoto ID like a registration card, you need two that show the same address as in the records.

    I think that’s what the AZ SOS’s website says about the voter ID requirements, if I’m reading it right:

    Every qualified elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector shall announce his/her name and place of residence to the election official and present one form of identification that bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.

    . . .

    Polling Place Process for Elector Whose Name Appears on the Signature Roster

    If the elector presents one form of identification that bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector and the name and address on the identification and the signature roster reasonably appear to be the same and the photo reasonably appears to be the elector, then the elector shall be issued a regular ballot. If the name and address on the identification do not reasonably appear to be the same as the name and address on the signature roster or the photo does not reasonably appear to be the elector, then the elector shall not be issued a regular ballot, but shall be issued a provisional ballot that will be verified in accordance with the section of the Procedures Manual entitled “Verification of Provisional Ballots”.
    If the elector presents two forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector without a photograph of the elector, the poll worker shall compare the name and address on the two pieces of identification with the name and address on the signature roster. If both pieces of identification reasonably appear to be the same as the name and address on the signature roster the elector shall be issued a regular ballot. If the name or address on either piece of provided identification does not reasonably appear to be the same as the name and address on the signature roster then the elector shall not be issued a regular ballot, but shall be issued a provisional ballot that will be verified in accordance with the section of the Procedures Manual entitled “Verification of Provisional Ballots”.

    . . . .

    The official signature rosters for use at the polling places shall include the elector’s residence address and the mailing address, if different from the residence address, from the elector’s registration form as prescribed by A.R.S. § 16-152(A). Identification as set forth in this procedure that bears the mailing address of the elector is sufficient identification if the name and address reasonably appear to be the same as the elector’s name and address contained in the signature roster or recorder’s certificate.

    Polling Place Process for Elector Who Presents a Recorder’s Certificate

    If the elector presents a recorder’s certificate to the poll worker, the poll worker shall treat the recorder’s certificate in the same manner as if the information on the recorder’s certificate appeared in the signature roster and compare the identification to the recorder’s certificate.
    If the elector presents one form of identification that bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector and the name and address on the identification and the recorder’s certificate reasonably appear to be the same and the photo reasonably appears to be the elector, then the elector shall be issued a regular ballot.

    If the name or address on the identification do not reasonably appear to be the same as the name or address on the recorder’s certificate or the photo does not reasonably appear to be the elector, then the elector shall not be issued a regular ballot, but shall be issued a provisional ballot that will be verified in accordance with the section of the Procedures Manual entitled “Verification of Provisional Ballots”.

    AZ SOS Proof of Identification

    We had a snafu at my (California) polling place, and the volunteers were working their little hearts out to get it straightened out (it wasn’t their fault) and help move crowds of people over a long day. It just seems like a pretty thankless job.

  58. 58
    dslak says:

    It just seems like a pretty thankless job.

    Especially given that there are GOP activists out there trying to disenfranchise people on your watch, and Democrats and other left-leaning folk waiting to pounce on you for any small sign of discrimination or prejudice. Those poll workers deserve a lot of thanks. Their job is as essential for the preservation of American freedom as anything the military does.

  59. 59
    Zuzu says:

    dslak Says:

    Those poll workers deserve a lot of thanks. Their job is as essential for the preservation of American freedom as anything the military does.

    Well, not as dangerous certainly. Though the woman in charge of my polling place – a school – had to keep yelling at the schoolkids to stop throwing sticks at the voters as they left.

  60. 60
    Perry Como says:

    Obama/Richardson 2008

    Not sure why I like that.

  61. 61
    dslak says:

    Though the woman in charge of my polling place – a school – had to keep yelling at the schoolkids to stop throwing sticks at the voters as they left.

    If Huckabee wins, maybe they’ll be entitled to throw stones back at them.

  62. 62
    Wilfred says:

    Since Clinton has been running for President for 16 years and Obama 6 months I have to go with Obama scoring big last night. An underdog making it through Super Tuesday intact was not in the plans of the people who designed the schedule.
    AP delegate count is C-744, 0- 679, about the same spread it was before Tuesday, I think. The rest of the schedule shapes up well for Obama, as does the notion of electability – he would beat McCain more easily than Clinton – who is no shoo-in against McCain under any circumstances.

    I always felt McCain would end up the nominee. We’re all in kind of a blog loop, where we think the people at RedState actually speak for anybody but themselves. I use them as an example but it’s true of most of the ‘conservative’ blogosphere. So every candidate they backed – Fred, Giuiliani, Romney – gets absolutely hammered and the candidates they despise – McCain and Huckabee – end up doing well. That should tell people that modern conservatism, as expressed by these people, is little more than a cult – so far out of the mainstream they can’t even get 10% of normal people to vote for them. The only pulse they’re capable of reading is Reagan’s.

    The establishment wants Clinton/McCain because only then can it be sure nothing will really change. This time it’s gonna be different.

  63. 63
    dslak says:

    The establishment wants Clinton/McCain because only then can it be sure nothing will really change.

    Which establishment are we talking about here? It’s not that I’m disagreeing, so much as ‘establishment’ is being used as an adjective here. So are we talking about the establishment media, the establishment Democrats, the Beltway establishment, etc.?

  64. 64
    Zuzu says:

    If Huckabee wins, maybe they’ll be entitled to throw stones back at them.

    Snort.

  65. 65
    Zuzu says:

    Okay, so the hypothetical is Clinton v. McCain. Could Huckabee run as an independent and be the spoiler?

  66. 66
    dslak says:

    Could Huckabee run as an independent and be the spoiler?

    I don’t think he would. Chances are McCain will reward him in some way for helping him to bring down the Romney beast.

  67. 67
    myiq2xu says:

    The rest of the schedule shapes up well for Obama, as does the notion of electability

    Electability – instead of voting for the candidate you think is the best, you vote for the candidate you think someone else will think is the best.

    An underdog making it through Super Tuesday intact was not in the plans of the people who designed the schedule.

    Who were those people? If they wanted to exclude underdogs, why are delegates apportioned instead of winner take all? The latter method would help the early favorite.

  68. 68
    Rarely Posts says:

    KCinDC Says:

    I’m a strong supporter of Obama, but “won in places where Democrats struggle” seems like a silly point. He won in a Democratic primary in places where Democrats struggle to win the general election.

    This is an excellent point. Would those voters stick with him if he was running against McCain? Probably not.

  69. 69
    dslak says:

    Would those voters stick with him if he was running against McCain?

    In some of those places, if the self-proclaimed Anti-Christ was running with an ‘R’ next to his name, they’d still vote for him over anyone the Democrats were running.

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    I don’t think he would. Chances are McCain will reward him in some way for helping him to bring down the Romney beast.

    Getting Huckabee to accept the VP job would be a boost to either Romney or McCain because it would help them with the evangelical/social conservative vote. It would also make the GOP establishment happy because it would put Huckabee on a shelf where he would be powerless unless that “heartbeat away” thing kicked in.

    IOW – they would be paying lip service to the fundies.

  71. 71
    myiq2xu says:

    In some of those places, if the self-proclaimed Anti-Christ was running with an ‘R’ next to his name, they’d still vote for him over anyone the Democrats were running.

    Neither Obama nor Hillary is gonna get the bigot vote, which is substantial in some “red” areas.

  72. 72
    dslak says:

    Electability – instead of voting for the candidate you think is the best, you vote for the candidate you think someone else will think is the best.

    That’s not the only way to conceive of it. If “winning elections” is one of the qualities you want in a candidate, then electibility is pretty important.

    In this case, the better initial argument for electability favors the Clintons, who have yet to lose a national race since coming to prominence in ’92. Those claiming that Obama is more electable have the greater burden on this particular issue. They have made supporting arguments for this view however, and they’re not unreasonable (the arguments, that is).

  73. 73
    Wilfred says:

    Electability – instead of voting for the candidate you think is the best, you vote for the candidate you think someone else will think is the best

    Third and most important option – vote for the person you think is best who also happens to be more electable. That’s why I support Obama.

    Who were those people? If they wanted to exclude underdogs, why are delegates apportioned instead of winner take all?

    Who were the people who took away Michigan and Florida delegates because both states opted to vote early? The system was designed to deliver a knockout blow – enlighten me as to who that would favor – the machine candidate with the entire apparatus of the party or an outsider?

    I didn’t say ‘exclude’ the underdog. I suggested that the system was designed to give a predictable result. The weighted delegate method is also conservative, designed to preclude unexpected events like political upsets.

  74. 74
    Zuzu says:

    dslak Says:

    Could Huckabee run as an independent and be the spoiler?

    I don’t think he would. Chances are McCain will reward him in some way for helping him to bring down the Romney beast.

    I dunno. Guy’s an ideologue. I don’t think he’s in it for political leverage.

    Though myiq’s idea about the VP spot may be palatable to him, though I don’t see it being likely.

  75. 75
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    My definition of electibility is voting for someone who I hope/believe will make positive changes, not having to wear a biohazard suit to do so and who the opposition will have problems demonizing. Obama fits all of those for me. I would rather have Dodd or Gore, but that is not to be. Barack is a good ‘consolation prize’ for me.

    I think one reason so many people are also for Barack is that they are tired of politics as usual, and if Hillary or anyone else on the right wins people know it will be 4/8 more years of the same old shit and nonstop ‘Clinton did this! Clinton did that! Clinton said this! Clinton said that!’ by the right. The news and commentary will rip her to shreds at the first chance they get, and she will be demonized non-stop until she is out of office. I would bet that by the time her term(s, if she even makes it to a second one) is (are) up, people will be so sick and tired of ‘Hillary this’ and ‘Hillary that’ that the right will get another chance and pick right up where they left off in 2009.

    I like the person above who said that Hillary has been running for the last sixteen years and Barack for the last six months. Ain’t that the truth.

    I am willing to bet that those Democrats who are running in not-so-secure states this fall would rather have Barack on the ticket instead of Hillary. If she is on the ticket, you can bet that droves of Republicans will deliberately go out and vote against her. That will not help these Dems in those kinds of states. I think Barack’s coat-tails are a hell of alot friendlier than Hillary’s.

    It is sad when a Democratic candidate energizes the opposition more than she does her own people. It is sadder when that candidate denies or attempts to minimize this only to further their own political goals. I think in her mind, she has to win this at all costs. If she does not, she will not get another chance. That would be the end of Hillary’s presidential aspirations, IMO.

    She is fighting for HER political life right now.

  76. 76
    Wilfred says:

    Which establishment are we talking about here?

    When I use the word I mean those people who either hold political and/or economic power and those who are in a position to influence the decisions of the public. Their ideological and practical manifestations defined as competition and free trade (with Government control); self-help (with social Welfare provisions);imperialism (with decolonization)and individualism (with collectivism)- all informed by the ethic of ‘progress’.

    This is essentially what Conservativism really is; modern politics operates within the boundaries of each opposition. IMO, Clinton will emphasize, say, social welfare provisions over self-help, but never to the point of actually disrupting the static balance between the two or challenging the underlying ideological foundations that support thinking this way, hence she is an establishment candidate in a way that Ron Paul was not. I support Obama but am under no illusion that he will be a radical, only that he might disrupt the Conservatist way of thinking more than Clinton or McCain would.

  77. 77
    myiq2xu says:

    Though myiq’s idea about the VP spot may be palatable to him, though I don’t see it being likely.

    I have no idea if he would take the job either, especially if Romney comes back from the dead to win the nomination.

  78. 78
    dslak says:

    I don’t think the fact that Obama currently offers something more than “politics as usual” is a good reason to support him, because once he’s the only Democrat in play, things will quickly return to that. The one advantage Obama offers for the general is that, although Hillary has far more experience dealing with amplified personal attacks and people already know where they stand with her, an Obama candidacy will drive the racists in the GOP out of the woodwork, and they’re going to shoot the party in the foot. Sure, most of the racism will be covert and involve dog whistles and innuendo, but they can’t keep a lid on all of it.

    My main reason for supporting Obama, given that the policy positions between him and Hillary are similar, is that he has a record for supporting transparency, while she does not. What’s wrong with the Bush administration is not simply that they’ve been “conservative,” but that they don’t believe in accountability for anyone in the right clique, and the Beltway establishment has been more than happy to support them in their efforts.

    Many of those associated with the Hillary campaign have been those supporting Bush’s bellicosity from the beginning, and decrying the partisanship of those who, early on, complained about his excesses. Obama instead has advisers like Richard Clarke, who took on the Bush administration before it became popular to do so. Somebody who pushes for transparency and accountability when there’s no obvious benefit to doing so at the time is more trustworthy on the matter than somebody who discovered those virtues just in time to run for president.

  79. 79
    bernarda says:

    What universe is dslak living in? Obama is the wishy-washy guy who seeks compromise with the Rethuglicans. What is needed is more solid partisanship. No one should give the Rethugs the time of day.

    For me, I see that Obama has now lost. This was his big push and he didn’t win in the States that matter except as a homeboy in Illinois. It is an illusion to think that those confirmed Red States would go to him in a general election.

    The only thing that remains is for Obama to promise to support the final Democratic candidate and then use his formidable oratory skills to campaign for her. If he doesn’t, he is just another misogynist opportunist.

  80. 80
    dslak says:

    Obama is the wishy-washy guy who seeks compromise with the Rethuglicans. What is needed is more solid partisanship.

    Getting Republicans to support you on what you want by agreeing to work with them is not the same as the lame “bipartisanship” that’s infected Washington since Bush took office.

    For me, I see that Obama has now lost.

    Have you looked at the delegate counts recently? That should clear up any misconceptions such as this one.

    If he doesn’t, he is just another misogynist opportunist.

    Is everyone who doesn’t support Hillary a misogynist, or just the black people who don’t?

  81. 81
    bernarda says:

    dslak, “Is everyone who doesn’t support Hillary a misogynist, or just the black people who don’t?”

    Not everyone who supports Obama is misogynist, but more than not, especially among white “liberals”.

    Look up the good summary given at Leftcoaster.

  82. 82
    dslak says:

    Not everyone who supports Obama is misogynist, but more than not, especially among white “liberals”.

    So you’re saying that Hillary supporters are racist?

  83. 83
    ding7777 says:

    dslak Says:

    My main reason for supporting Obama, […] is that he has a record for supporting transparency, while she does not.

    tranparency = oratory one way, then vote using the “present”, “wrong button”, or “no show” technique

  84. 84
    little bird says:

    tranparency = oratory one way, then vote using the “present”, “wrong button”, or “no show” technique

    Sure. He was transparently refusing to make decisions that could come back to bite him in the ass.

  85. 85
    p.lukasiak says:

    The big story tonight is how off the exit polls were. Within minutes of the polls closing in California, CNN was saying that Obama won 49% of the white vote there. Well, they’ve “adjusted” their exit polls, and the number is 42%.

    Other big stories — Obama won in connecticut because of continued resentment and anger with her over Lieberman. 39% of Connecticut voters have a strongly unfavorable view of Lieberman, and they went for Obama 55% to 44%.

    Regardless of who wins, the Democrats are going to have to fight racism and misogyny in the general election. Obama did far better with men than Hillary did — and lets not kid ourselves, in non-caucus states, except for Connecticut, when Obama won it was based on huge turnout and overwhelming support in the black community for Obama. The idea that Obama will be able to transcend the racial barrier in the general election when independents and republicans will be voting in large numbers remains to be seen.

  86. 86
    Jake says:

    As an argument against racism making a differene in this campaign, you can see at the NYT that, among other things, Obama slaughtered Clinton in Idaho. Idaho is also a home to the racist Christian Identity Movement, so such a large victory for him there is significant.

    Nope. Let’s take this in baby steps:
    1. This isn’t a Republican v. Democrat race, this is a Democrat v. Democrat race.
    2. I’m willing to bet Democrats (even Idaho Democrats) don’t often join the CIM. I would not be surprised if the Republicans stayed the hell away also.
    3. It would be interesting to know how many members the CIM has in Idaho period (and whether there are enough to sway an election) but it wouldn’t take away from my main point:

    You can’t just point at a random state and say “Look, it’s got racists!” and draw any conclusion other than that state is infested by a racist organization. We’ve got a few here in Maryland but they tend to be quiet so they don’t get their asses kicked.

    So, you could just as easily point at the Idaho results and say “Look! Sexism.”

    Or you could realize that the Idaho results don’t prove squat re: bigotry.

    Man, we’re going to be drowned by the wank wave if HRC wins (Racism!) or BHO wins (Sexism!) or McCaniac wins (Racism AND Sexism!).

  87. 87
    dslak says:

    when Obama won it was based on huge turnout and overwhelming support in the black community

    Thank God for all those black Idahoans putting him over the top!

  88. 88
    dslak says:

    Or you could realize that the Idaho results don’t prove squat re: bigotry.

    My point was only that racism isn’t preventing Obama from winning a primary in a state where the Democrats are overwhelmingly white. I wasn’t trying to make a serious point about racism in Idaho in general, but I thought it was worth mentioning the Christian Identity folk to give some context.

  89. 89
    Fausto Carmona says:

    The idea that Obama will be able to transcend the racial barrier in the general election when independents and republicans will be voting in large numbers remains to be seen.

    He’s already winning over independents, and true red Republicans are finding better things to do than pull the lever for McCain on November 4th. Obama’s electability won’t be a problem.

  90. 90
    Daniel Munz says:

    The bottom line, for me, is this: Substantively, the night was a tie — both camps can make compelling points, spin-wise. That said, my impression is that expectations, money, and the rest of the month’s primary calendar mean that a tie goes to Obama. But this doesn’t really wound either candidacy fatally.

  91. 91
    Tractarian says:

    myiq2 at 3:02 am:

    The biggest lead Hillary had in any poll I saw regarding California was 3%.

    myiq2 at 2:59 am:

    I believe the Field Poll showed Clinton ahead by 8 the other day.

  92. 92
    Tractarian says:

    never mind, i’m an idiot no coffee

  93. 93
    Zifnab says:

    He’s already winning over independents, and true red Republicans are finding better things to do than pull the lever for McCain on November 4th. Obama’s electability won’t be a problem.

    Also, keep in mind the voter turnouts. Review the Iowa race or the NH race. Obama or Clinton individually attract more voters than any two Republican candidates combined. Democratic voter turnout is huge, with Dems beating Reps in head count by 10-15% Assuming Democrats and Republicans show up in proportionate numbers, we could nominate Gravel and still win this.

    Beyond that, I agree that Obama is truly on fire, but he’s getting pounded in the Super Delegate count. I’d really hate to see Clinton get to the convention and steal the nomination by dint of having lots of friends. An 87 delegate lag is a big hurdle to cross on the Obama side.

  94. 94
    ThymeZone says:

    Zuzu, thanks for the information.

    The main reason for the upset at the poll yesterday was that the voter information cards and mailings don’t say what that information says.

    The card, which is the reference used at the polling place, clearly says that the drivers license is valid ID if it has a photo and is not expired. That’s it, and so people come to the poll with that expectation.

    If the address match is also required, then this should be clearly stated on the voter information card. I fault the people who set up the process, really, more than the poll workers, after thinking it over.

    According to anectdote, what I saw yesterday was repeated all over the state and many times, as confusion reigned. How they could make something so simple into something so complicated, I am not sure. I am sure that I think the whole requirement is unconstitutional and I am hoping that it gets struck down.

  95. 95
    Fe E says:

    Bernarda, do you want to lay off the “rage pills” maybe? I think most supporters of Obama would vote for Hillary Clinotn in the general; just because you like one person a bit more than the other doesn’t mean you love one and the hate the other.

    But hey, if stewing in bile is what gets you through the night, well, do what you gotta do.

    In other news, I was watching CNN this morning and the were flashing vote totals in the primaries/caucuses last night–instead of just percents of vote, and looking at it from a Dem v. Republican standpoint, the Ds were usually crushing the Rs–even in many red states.

    If the two Democratic frontrunners can team up (either as a ticket or just working for the nominee) this looks to br a very “blue” Novemeber.

    Can anybody throw up a link to those numbers of vote totals?

  96. 96

    […] McCain’s Night […]

  97. 97
    D-Chance. says:

    p.lukasiak Says:
    Regardless of who wins, the Democrats are going to have to fight racism and misogyny in the general election.

    Given his gender and Latino gap, Obama is already having to fight it within his own Democrat party.

  98. 98
    D-Chance. says:

    Well, I did it. Listened to the first segment of Limbaugh, about 11 minutes. He tried to start out with a smile and levity; but right before the commercial break he began to crack and fall into McCain/NYT/Democrats/liberals seethings. And I just can’t bring myself to waste more time on him. Kudos to those of you who make it the rest of the first hour.

  99. 99
    Jake says:

    My point was only that racism isn’t preventing Obama from winning a primary in a state where the Democrats are overwhelmingly white.

    Here’s the problem (still). Your point assumes a significant number of white Democrats are racists of some sort. Sure there are racist Democrats, but there are also sexist Democrats so your point is just as valid as someone claiming sexism gave Obama Idaho. And Colorado. And Utah …

    No thanks.

  100. 100
    ding7777 says:

    My point was only that racism isn’t preventing Obama from winning a primary in a state where the Democrats are overwhelmingly white

    Hillary solidly wins states with

  101. 101
    dslak says:

    Your point assumes a significant number of white Democrats are racists of some sort.

    No, it doesn’t. My point assumes that some people were claiming that Obama couldn’t win a white state because a significant number of Democrats are racists of some sort. How the hell did you get an implication that Democrats are racists out of anything I said?

  102. 102
    Zuzu says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    According to anectdote, what I saw yesterday was repeated all over the state and many times, as confusion reigned. How they could make something so simple into something so complicated, I am not sure. I am sure that I think the whole requirement is unconstitutional and I am hoping that it gets struck down.

    There seem to be plenty of states scrambling to come up with workable voter ID requirements. And plenty of challenges too, looks like.

    USA Today

  103. 103
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Hillary solidly wins states with

    … almost all of her campaign money, emptying her coffers to the point that she has to loan herself $5 mil.

    *Thought I would help out and finish that sentence for you. ;)

    Hillary supporters say it is a 50-50 situation, or that she is ahead (using the nebulous Super Delegates as the crutch). Obama supporters say that Obama has done nothing but gain more support as time passes, and that support used to be Hillary’s.

    I agree with Kos and his thoughts that Obama is surging while Clinton is declining. The fact that Hillary emptied her campaign coffers prior to Super Tuesday tells me that they pulled out all of the stops and poured it on before the Tuesday vote.

    It did not work. She is now treading water and there is no land in sight until the Texas primary. Pretty much everything else between now and then looks better for Obama.

    Plus Obama is raising money while Hillary is profusely bleeding money in an attempt to stay viable against him. Like I said above, Hillary is fighting for her political life, and I believe she is far from being ‘down for the count’. With all of the crap that has passed under her bridge in the recent campaign past, I have a feeling it is only going to get uglier.

    Hey, the Limpbaugh meltdown today was great! Damn he sounds like a hateful SOB, and the people he hates the most are his fellow Americans. He does not do talk radio, it is pure, unadulterated hate radio. Now while I may disagree with the right on many issues, I do not hate them. They are MY fellow Americans. I do have to admit though that some of my fellow Americans need to be institutionalized and sedated, but I don’t hate them.

    I just don’t like them. There is a BIG difference between ‘don’t like’ and ‘hate’, but that distinction is lost on those idiots.

    I wish he would overdose on Viagra and Oxycontin, while on the air.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] McCain’s Night […]

  2. […] Update II:  John Cole: “Make sure you listen to Rush tomorrow. Should be fun.”  […]

Comments are closed.