Image
Tori
There may not be as many states voting today as did on the original Super Tuesday, but given the state of both the Democratic and Republican races, today could very well prove to be even more important than February 5th.

For John McCain, today holds the potential for him to win enough delegates to finally secure the nomination (if not the hearts of his party) and boot his last remaining opponent Mike Huckabee to the curb.

And for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is being cast in a do or die spot, while Barack Obama is hoping to prove the success he's enjoyed in wins through the last 11 states was not a fluke.

Here's where I'm confused. The media is acting like today could be decisive for the Democrats - with calls that Clinton consider bowing out if she doesn't win/Obama being unstoppable in one outcome, or claims of a "fad" if Obama doesn't perform well... But the truth of the matter is, I expect both the big states that are voting today, Texas and Ohio, to be close. Maybe they won't be, but if the polls are accurate, a "win" could mean a few percentage points over the opponent. And since the delegates are split proportionally...that means a few more or a few less delegates. Which means chances are no one is going to pull that far ahead. An Obama win by a few points in Texas allows him to pull a little further ahead, a Clinton win in Ohio by a few points allows her to catch up a little bit...but none of this means the nomination is clenched, unless one or the other wins big!!, and that seems unlikely. So why all the fuss?
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Election 2008
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics Barack Obama Election 2008 5 more
  3.     
    |

27 comments // Super-er Tuesday?

  • Marilynn_Murray
  • Chique
  • JanforGore
  • Chique
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Well, John Edwards suspended his campaign right before my primary but I still voted for him as his name was still on my ballot. And he has many supporters who still have not gone to either of the two left because we support his platform that has been totally ignored by the Democratic party leadership and who refuse to just have the media pick once again shoved down our throats. It is amazing to me how so many people who talk about change really just then conform to the same system they claim to despise. As someone who believes in real Democratic principles, I do not support the DLC platform of Hillary Clinton ( though as a believer in Democracy think she can stay in this as long as no nominee has secured the required number of delegates) and I do not support the empty suit rhetoric of someone who I knew nothing about until he decided that with only two years in the U.S, Senate he was worthy to be president of this country just because he sponsored a couple of bills in Illinois and can say the word change. John Edwards has told his delegates to stand firm for him in the hopes that his platform will still be heard at the convention. He only 'suspended' his campaign. Therefore, I continue to support his vision for this country and protest the corporate. media, and political phonies who pushed him out just to give the spotlight to their media darlings. You want to ignore that, go right ahead. I'm not settling anymore.

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • Forgot John Edwards? I still love him to pieces. Unfortunately he has suspended his campaign and I can't vote for him. I'm voting for Obama twice hoping he will be so grateful he will choose Edwards for VP.

    • 3 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • You could be underestimating how pi$$ed off the democrats are dontipo.

      Marilynn, when was it you forgot about John Edwards? I must have missed that historically accurate event.

    • 3 years ago
  • dontipo
    • 0
      dontipo  
    • Drama. Ask yourselves, would there really be a black or women president? I'm thinking that a win in the democratic elections will only guarantee a republican for president. Just an Idea.
      A war between between republicans versus democrats. Who would win? I'm thinking the republicans will spank the democrats.

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • Crob, That is funny. True but funny. I can hardly wait for the voting results to come in. I'm curious about how the two votes will turn out in Texas.

    • 3 years ago
  • mattbrawn
    • 0
      mattbrawn  
    • Image
    • Latest polls are showing that Obama is showing a slim advantage on Clinton in both states, although the leads are within the poll's margin of error of just under 4 percentage points.

    • 3 years ago
  • Treatz
    • 0
      Treatz  
    • People, please! Let's all put aside our differences on the two candidates for the Democratic nomination. We need to be civil to each other. Come what may tonight, we need to be ready to edumacate the populace on the suckiness of the Republican candidate. All eyes on that.
      (Sung to the tune of Cocaine)
      "Do you want more of the same...McCain!"

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  
    • New Texas Poll Results Shows Hillary Pissing People Off Slightly Less Than Normal! Is This A Comeback?

      According to the latest Texas poll Hillary is slightly less irritating to voters than she was one day ago. Now these results are still with in the margin of "Oh Shit! Anybody But Hillary!" error -- but it is worth noting.

      "The liberal media claims it's impossible for us to win Texas," Hillary told a crowd at a local Republican fundraiser. "Well we're showing them!"

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • I don't think people think of Obama as a messiah. They just know that his name is not Bush or Clinton. That's enough of a change for me. Do you think someone on this page has a chance at the ruby slippers when the witch is through with them?

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • Jan, I intended to be rude and obnoxious. You come out with statements about something you know nothing about as if it were fact. Texas gets only the amount of delegates they are supposed to have. How they choose them is up to them. I personally am tired of your underhanded insults to everyone that doesn't happen to agree with you. You appear to be ticked because the Wicked Witch doesn't do well in a caucus. Sucks to be a Hillary supporter in a caucus state.

    • 3 years ago
  • walesjames
    • 0
      walesjames  
    • "We are reaping the rewards of the 90s. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and put our jobs on an express trip overseas. Bill Clinton finished off fairness in broadcasting making it possible for six corporations to control the "news" we get."
      Stop your whining. Get our there and start making some news. Get involved. People win elections, not false Messiahs.

      "The 90s are OVER! Furthermore, Shillary Rotten Clintoon has not proven to be that impressive or promising in the new millennium."
      Neither has Obama, except for people worshiping him as a false Messiah.
      That's pretty remarkable, I think.

      Peace and Love,

      Wales

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • You tell someone too "kiss off" and that isn't rude and obnoxious? I'm not the one bragging about taking advantage of the system because I hate one candidate more than I like the other. There was nothing rude or obnoxious about stating the obvious.

    • 3 years ago
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  
    • Part of the problem with a protracted nomination process -- Is Hillary! If these two were playing nice (and I believe Obama is) then it wouldn't be a big deal. However, Hillary's made a desperation move wherein she stopped selling herself as a candidate and decided to tear down Obama instead. If the mudslinging and attack ads continue unabted right up until the very last moment -- does that work to the Dems advantage or the Repubs? Personally I think the reason everyone is desperate to get this over with as quickly as possible (especially the Dem leadership) is because we need to break up this circular firing squad currently going on. Hillary keeps pumping out those attack ads claiming we'll all die if we don't vote for her -- apparently not caring that this is just handing the McCain camp tons of ammo if she (gasp!) loses the nomination.

      "It's 3am. There are muslim terrorists on the loose! Your children could all die. Do you really want some untested, inexperinced political hack with a muslim sounding middle name in charge with his finger ont he button? Do you? Do you!?! If you actually care about America and your family you'll vote for me. Otherwise vote for that weird dude with foreign sounding middle name and a messiah complex that will probably lose anyway. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."

      Subtle Hillary, subtle.

      The only way to turn off the attack ads and unify the party for the final push against McCain is, basically, for one of the two candidates to back off and/or drop out. But I'm not naming any names (*cough*Hillary!*cough*)

    • 3 years ago
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  
    • Like many of the primaries and caucuses running up to today, this contest is about bragging rights. Tomorrow's headlines are going to be about who wins, even if the margin is small. Obama was never really supposed to win Texas or Ohio, so even the most marginal win is significant, even if it is psychological. If Obama loses, even slightly, he can claim he made significant gains in a short period of time. In some cases those gains represent 20 points in his favor.

    • 3 years ago
  • mattbrawn
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • We are reaping the rewards of the 90s. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and put our jobs on an express trip overseas. Bill Clinton finished off fairness in broadcasting making it possible for six corporations to control the "news" we get. I don't want him covering anyone's back on National Security. Bill Clinton allowed the finishing up of the destruction of out military that Rumsfeld and Old Man Bush started. We have had more than enough of the Bush, Clinton families. Lets not be ridiculous, we need change now.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Figures in Texas you get to vote twice. How Democratic, and you even brag about it. I don't see all the fuss by the media either, Tori. Sen. Clinton should stay in this as long as there is no definitive nominee. It's called Democracy, a word that seems to mean so little to so many.

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • Just went and voted for Obama once. Will go back tonight at 7:00 and vote for him again in the caucus. Feels like we get something for free in Texas.

    • 3 years ago
  • richjm
    • 0
      richjm  
    • The thinking within the Democratic party is that they need a finalised candidate as soon as possible so the party can unite behind one person and begin putting their combined efforts into the contest against John McCain, who is now thought to be guaranteed the Republican nomination.

      Those people who are calling for Clinton to concede reason that it's dividing the party within and making it difficult for swing voters to commit to the Democrats. They argue that the sooner Clinton and Obama can sort out who is going forward as the party's candidate, the sooner they can focus on building a case against the Republicans and not the other prominent face of the Democratic party.

      On the other hand, Clinton supporters argue that it's not over till the First Lady sings so, and that when the race is this close, it's only fair to give more time for a clearer front runner to emerge.

      Ultimately, for me, the final word goes to Bill Clinton, simply because Hillary is now pretty much tied to sticking to this since the comment has received a huge amount of attention in the press:
      "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you [a crowd at his speech in Texas] don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be.

    • 3 years ago
  • smallwood
    • 0
      smallwood  
    • That's an interesting point. The media clearly plays up the significance of every single election night to increase their ratings. Remember what a gigantic deal they made of the first "Super Tuesday" and how very little was decided by it? This will be no different.

    • 3 years ago
  • phillyphil
    • 0
      phillyphil  
    • "why the fuss?"

      cause they want you to tune into the NEWS!!! this is the most important day EVER!! everything is SUPER tuesday. "dont miss what coming up after the break... it could KILL YOU!!"

      this is an important election and there are issues to discuss, platforms to be created and campaigns to marginalize, but the media is always more concerned with its own survival than with NEWS!! therefore = fuss

      GO OBAMA

    • 3 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • I heard on the radio that Obama is way ahead in the big cities in Texas, and that would give him the majority of the delegates. Clinton is doing better in the gulf coast, apparently not so many delegates. I wonder if the polls are including the second votes people get when they caucus? It seems to me if they aren't, the virtual tie isn't very accurate. Obama does very well in caucuses.

    • 3 years ago
more from News and Politics:

top videos