Open Thread: Potomac Primary
February 12th, 2008 at 07:17pm Mark Noonan
Little late off the mark, but here we go:
Obama seems to have won a crushing victory in Virginia while on the GOP side Virginia is too close to call (I’m still betting on a substantial McCain win in VA, after all is said and done). About 45 minutes until the polls close in Maryland and DC.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Things are looking good for Barack Obama (D-Rezko)…
Virginia too close to call between John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
If Hillary loses all contests tonight, expect the gloves to really come off soon… Her campaign is sure to leak something to the media about Obama.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: RCP is reporting that a judge in Maryland is keeping the polls open late - bad weather is leading to bad traffic, delaying people on the way to vote; means we might not get Maryland results as soon as thought.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: McCain projected winner of Virginia… Out of the race, but still on the ballot, Romney got 25% of the vote.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And with 65% reporting, McCain is winning VA by 48% to 44%; that is substantial, in my world; now with 75% in, McCain 49%, Huckabee 43%; now with 83% reporting, McCain 50%, Huckabee 41%.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Karl Rove says it’s not going to be a good night for Huckabee. I say it’s time for Huckabee to throw in the towel.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: RCP is saying that it is now mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win; not sure about that, myself, but the plain fact of the matter is that Huckabee pressing on from here will start to harm his future prospects.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Maryland for McCain.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Obama and McCain sweep Potomac Primary.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
36 Comments
1. Doug | February 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Mark, the substantial McCain victory won’t materialize.
However, it looks more and more like McCain will owe his VP slot to Romney - without Romney supporters continually voting from Romney instead of Huckabee, it’s pretty much made McCain the nominee.
SC, MO, WA, LA, VA, etc. etc. all states that in all likelihood were given to McCain by Romney voters, well, voting for Romney.
I did notice the exit polling that said you were in the minority, most Republicans voting democrat went for Obama, wonder why.
2. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | February 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
How do you sheep feel now that the anti-McAmensty forces have come out so strong against him. You got on the Straight Talk Distressed a little to early.
Substantial McFiengold victory? What you smokin’? Panama Red? Thai Bomb?
The big story tonight is the victory of the anti-McLame forces!
3. LiberalMind | February 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Barack Obama with his message of hope conquering fear, his positive outlook that will change America will hopefully lead him to the White House.
After eight too long years of oxymoron of “compassionate conservatism” that only aided the few at the expense of common good, this country is ready and willing to return to its strong liberal heritage.
The task of cleaning up after Mr. Bush and repairing the damage of the Republican congress is perhaps the greatest challenge facing our nation.
Obama believes in the strength of the American people to rise to the challenge and cast conservatism onto the ash heap of history.
4. Matt Margolis | February 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Obama’s scripted “message of hope” doesn’t have the foundation of experience. Giving warm fuzzy speeches doesn’t qualify you to be the commander-in-chief.
5. Darva Conger | February 12th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Was Bush qualified to be C-in-C when he ran an oil company into the ground, ran a ball club and was gov of Texas?
Give me a break. Obama is not Bush. Obama is not McCain. That is what America wants right now.
That is enough. A dogcatcher from Omaha who says he is not Bush or McCain would win this fall.
You still do not get how fed up America is with the GOP. Thats OK. You’ll learn fast enough.
6. Kahn | February 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Darva, great to see that anger and hate still rule on the left. Thanks for your input.
7. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
StopJohn,
You were saying?
8. phnx | February 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The really bad news for Hillary in Virginia is that Obama won the Latino Vote, and he also did well among women. If this continues she is toast. However, its the Clintons, they can’t be counted out until the fat lady sings.
Looks like the Republican base is finally coming around to support McCain, the putative nominee.
Like I have said before, The only reason I would vote for him is the Supreme Court. Hillary, Obama, McCain, will all probably damage the country by raising taxes, giving amnesty to illegals, and expanding dependency on government through transfer payments. At least McCain has indicated support of the Roberts nomination.
9. LiberalMind | February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I think that Abraham Lincoln had only served one term in the House of Representatives and some service in state assemblies in Illinois.
Regardless, all this Republican “experience” has brought upon this nation terrible damage.
And when you think about Dick Cheney’s long “experience” in government, it is more than enough to desire new faces and new ideas.
10. Matt Margolis | February 12th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Oh please, LiberalMind, do explain, in detail. It be a welcome change for you to explain your opinions rather then just state them with no supporting evidence.
11. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Darva,
At least 125 million Americans will vote in November - at most, Obama has received a bit less than 10 million votes. Re-cork that champagne.
12. Joe | February 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Matt — “Barack Obama (D-Rezko)…”
I thought you were above crap like that. Guess you fall right in with the rest of them on this site.
It’s your blog, I thought maybe you’d stay above the name-calling and cheap shots.
I guess I thought too highly of you.
Anyway… big wins for Obama. Over 60% in all 3 races. Not a huge surprise him winning, just that those are some big numbers.
13. Darva Conger | February 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Mark:
Don’t ask me to re-cork anything. You were saying that the GOP would retain Congress in 2006. I doubt your ability to predict what will happen in November.
The GOP bet everything on Clinton being the nominee. The GOP bet everything on anyone but McCain getting the nomination.
Both bets have failed.
Now you have a nominee that pisses the hell out of the base and yet is tied to the Iraq 100 Year War.
We’ll have a nominee that is not Clinton. Someone who inspires folks. Someone who was against the war consistently.
You’re side is toast.
14. neocon | February 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Darva,
So you’re pinning your hopes on someone who is not Clinton, who would make a great motivational speaker, who lacks the courage to help oppressed women in need, and who is directly tied to corruption?
Good luck with that.
15. Matt Margolis | February 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Joe,
Are we supposed to let Democrats take their cheap shots at Republicans, time after time after time, and just sit on our hands? Forget that.
Pointing out a candidate’s corruption, even Obama’s, is not a cheap shot, it’s exposing the truth.
16. neocon | February 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
>>I guess I thought too highly of you - Joe<<
It would be impossible for anyone to think too highly of you Joe. And I am sure Matt is crushed.
Are you worried Joe that Obama will take direction from the Trinity Church? Why are liberals insisting we have a raised Muslim, converted Chrisitan in the WH? I thought you guys stood for seperation of church and state?
17. Matt Margolis | February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
neocon,
This could be the Democrats recruitment ad for presidential candidates:
Seeking candidate for most important job in the country. Must oppose the war in Iraq. No experience necessary.
18. neocon | February 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Matt,
Brilliant, but I think Barak would still be under qualified. However, Hillary would be qualified depending on the day.
19. Magnum Serpentine | February 12th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
huck is a spoiler and he needs to be expelled from the republican party.
20. Mark Noonan | February 13th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Darva,
We shall see - but I’m not the one predicting the outcome of the election, you are.
21. Kahn | February 13th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I hear many Republicans here in Virginia voted for Clinton because they thought she’d be better to run against. I don’t have enough soap in the house to handle the long shower I’d have to take after doing that.
I voted for McCain. God help me.
22. Jonathan | February 13th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Joe, you have to realize is that very little is beneath this partisan hack.
Anyway, I would be concerned if I were Hillary. Obama has swept eight states in a row and if she falls in Texas and Ohio, she’ll be all but done.
23. TiredofLibBullShit | February 13th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Experience doesn’t matter?
That’s not what you libs were saying in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
What next talking point are you going to throw out there?
24. phnx | February 13th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Kahn,
This crossover voting in primaries has got to stop. Each party should be free to pick the candidate who best represents the political philosophy of the party. Crossovers in some states have permitted Dems and Independents to give us McCain. At the same time, Republicans have crossed over to vote for Obama or Clinton, not because they supprt either one, but to stick it to the dems. Not a good sign for determining the true will of the people.
And speaking of that, what’s up with the super delegates of the Dems. This smacks of the party leaders trying to control the outcome, regardless of the will of the people. This is real Marxist philosophy…let the masses THINK there is a democratic process, but the party elites know best. Its at the core of the dems…you can’t be trusted…they know what’s best for you, and the country.
Bet they never thought Barry Obama would be this close to taking all the marbles. If the super Delegate elites steal the primary from the people, there will be hell to pay.
25. Christian Wright | February 13th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Obama just won rural Virginia. Try and put your head around that one. White men in rural Virginia voted for Obama. They could have voted for McCain or Huckabee but they voted for Obama (not all but a lot). Culpepper Virginia was a conservative rural town. Four years ago 6.8% turned out for the primary. This year 28% turned out and 55% voted in the Democratic primary.
26. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 8:32 am
D-Rezco? Funny, Mark, but there’s no there there. Obama has given to charity all of the money donated to him by Rezco.
Meanwhile, has Bush given back the 3.8 million dollars that Rezco raised for him in 2003? And what about Abramhoff? What about that Republican Al Qaeda operative Mark Deli Siljander? Etc, etc. . .
27. neocon | February 13th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Christian,
Thank you for your racist take on the election. It’s so refreshing to read those racists posts from those who want to unite us.
I never realized, nor had it been anything worthy of thinking about, that white men occupy rural Virginia. Could you please break down the other regions by race for me?
28. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
>>Thank you for your racist take on the election. It’s so refreshing to read those racists posts from those who want to unite us.
Hey, that’s ironic, neocon!
Do you remember who recently asked “Do you have to be black to vote for Obama?”
Oh, that’s right. . . it was you!
And who said:
“here is the “change” earbama will give you.
I hope you are, African, or African- American.
otherwise honkey you be in fo it!
The NOI is waiting for girlymen like you.And bama is REAL friendly with screwie louie.”
It was FmrMarine!
And the crowd at McCain’s victory speech was pretty homogenous, wasn’t it? Doesn’t he have the support of George Macaca Allen and Trent Lott (of the CCC)?
And you’re accusing the Democratic party of racism? That’s rich!
Just to get it straight: you’re claiming that it’s racist that white folks in Virginia voted for an African American?!?!?!? It would be less racist if white folks only voted for white candidates?
29. neocon | February 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
coulter,
Awfully defensive aren’t we? My comments to you are based solely on your obsession in identifying ones skin color in terms of primary voting, hence my question.
Much like a fish doesn’t realize it’s wet, you’re in much of the same conundrum with your racism. Think about it.
30. Joe | February 13th, 2008 at 9:46 am
neocon — Are you worried Joe that Obama will take direction from the Trinity Church? Why are liberals insisting we have a raised Muslim, converted Chrisitan in the WH? I thought you guys stood for seperation of church and state?
Are you a freaking idiot? When did anyone insist anything about any religion in the White House?
It is the Repubs that continually brought up Romney’s Mormonism. It is the Repubs who insist on trying to tell people that Obama is a Muslim. Dems don’t care.
You just spew out crap hoping something sticks.
31. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Funny that I never brought up skin color in regards to primary voting.
It was you who wondered whether you had to be black to vote for him, remember?
And, BTW, you don’t have to be. . . So it’s okay for you to break out of your narrow-demographic GOP party and vote for him!
32. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
neocon-
The Democrats (as part of their platform) believe in the separation of Church and State as set forth by our founding fathers (and written about extensively by Adams and Jefferson). To liberals, it doesn’t matter what religion our candidates are (or, indeed, whether they are religious at all!)
The President is a secular position, it is not the head of any Church. The job is narrowly defined- to Protect and Preserve the US and the Constitution! You will not hear Obama, Clinton, or any other leading Democrat talking about the Ten Commandments, the Bible, etc. . . Would you expect your city councilperson to get elected by talking about Christ and the Ten Commandments? I hope not, since that should be left up to the Church!
Although the Dems believe in a strict Church/State separation, the Republicans don’t. . . A candidate’s religion is only relevant to the Republicans who want a Theocracy and live under the delusion that this is a “Christian Nation”!
33. neocon | February 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
>>You just spew out crap hoping something sticks. - coulter<<
Oh that’s rich. It’s that fish analogy again.
You do live in a naive little bubble don’t you coulter? Please follow the link below to get a better grasp about Democrats and Religion.
Hillary’s Prayer: Hillary Clinton’s Religion and Politics
News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
34. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 10:24 am
You miscredit Joe’s quote to me, neocon. But, then again, you are not factually correct very often.
Though I much prefer Obama, I have no doubt that Clinton would not support amending the Constitution with a ‘flag-burning amendment’ (though she has pandered on the issue, she never supported an Amendment), a ‘life amendment’, a ‘marriage amendment’ (how Conservative is it to have the FEDERAL government tell you who you can and can’t marry?!?!?), etc
For that matter, how is is ‘Conservative’ to run to CHANGE the Constitution to make in more in line with the ‘Ten Commandments’? What’s next, an ‘Honor thy father and mother’ Amendment? A ‘Thou shall keep the sabbath day holy’ Amendment (remember, that means no work and NO Football on Sundays!)?
35. Joe | February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
You are too funny neocon.
You say… “Are you worried Joe that Obama will take direction from the Trinity Church?”
and… “…liberals insisting we have a raised Muslim, converted Chrisitan in the WH”
I tell you Dems don’t care what religion the candidate is. And you bring this up about Clinton.
First of all, you have read in my previous posts that I support Obama (otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me that question above).
Second of all, who cares if Hillary is in some “secret religious group”? What in her Senate years says that she would bring religion into politics? That would seem to be you trying to make something out of nothing.
It is people on your side that they take their orders from God or that they feel it would be easier and better to change the Constitution to better reflect God’s laws.
So stick to a story here. If you are claiming that Dems are “insisting we have a raised Muslim, converted Chrisitan in the WH”, then prove it.
Otherwise, that is just BS coming out of you.
36. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | February 13th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Mark,
You were saying you support McAmnesty’s plan for illegals by making them pay a $2K fine for breaking out laws and getting a pathway to citizenship?
You were saying you support McCain calling Bush’s handling of the war a “train wreck?” That is supporting the C-in-C in a time of terrorist war?
You were saying you support McCain when he says Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve blame for creating the Iraq “witches brew.”
You were saying you support McTraitor when he says Bush in the Iraq was “very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” You support this sort of treason in a time of war?
You were saying you support a potential first lady who was addicted to Percocet and Vicodin and stole drugs to feed her habit?
You were saying you support his trashing of the first admentment poltical speech rights?
You were saying you support moving terrorists POWs to Kansas?