Tsunami Tuesday Open Thread

by hilzoy

CNN has called Georgia for Obama. Since they called it about a nanosecond after the polls closed, I'm guessing he won by a pretty large margin. TPM has some preliminary exit poll data here, but Marc Ambinder adds the necessary caveats:

"I would just remind all of you that the first wave of exit poll data is not reportable or reported for a simple reason: the sample sizes are not large enough to accurately tell us much of anything, unless one candidate is getting, like, 80% of the vote."

Presumably this holds, in a slightly weaker but still pretty serious form, for the second wave data that Josh has.

More details on the exit polls here (h/t TPM and elsewhere):

"Clinton was winning only a slight edge among women and white voters, both groups that she has won handily in earlier contests, according to preliminary results from interviews with voters in 16 states leaving polling places. Obama was collecting the overwhelming majority of votes cast by blacks, and Clinton was gaining the votes of roughly six in 10 Hispanics."

Here's a list of poll closing times (listed, for convenience, in Eastern Standard Time), from Real Clear Politics:

7:00 p.m.: Georgia

8:00 p.m.: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee

8:30 p.m.: Arkansas

9:00 p.m.: Arizona, New York

10:00 p.m.: Utah

11:00 p.m.: California

Caucus closing times are less predictable; that, rather than any disrespect to caucus states, is why I haven't listed them. :)

And, via dKos, here's an interesting set of predictions, by closing time: 7pm, 8pm, 9pm, 10pm, CA, and later (AK, American Samoa, Democrats Abroad.) smintheus at dKos says: "Some of his predictions are a bit risky and perhaps slightly too sanguine about Obama's chances, but Giordano's opinion is worth having." Personally, I just thought the attention to separate Congressional districts was interesting.

I may or may not update as the evening progresses (and if anyone else wants to update this thread, feel free.) Have at it!

*** UPDATE: CNN calls IL for Obama, OK for Clinton. On the Republican side: MA for Romney, IL and CT for McCain.

*** UPDATE: CNN has called AL, DE, IL, and GA for Obama; NY, AR, TN, OK, MA and NJ for Clinton. NBC also projects MA, NJ for Clinton.

CNN projects that McCain will win NY, NJ, CT, IL, DE; Huckabee will win AR, AL and WV; Romney will carry MA and UT. NBC also projects OK for McCain.

Further update: CNN and NBC call ND for Obama; NBC calls UT for Obama.

***

Yet another update: CNN calls UT, KS, CT, MN, ID for Obama.

CNN calls OK, AZ for McCain, ND for Romney. NBC calls GA for Huckabee.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

I would tend to expect McCain to win in Colorado Springs.

And I'm not saying there's no possibility of McCain winning here: but I think it's highly unlikely against Obama, and rather unlikely against Clinton. The state has rejected Republicans in a huge way over the course of the last half of the reign of Bushism.

Also, Republicans aren't exactly at a peak of popularity in the military right now.

[...] But while there appears to be growing optimism, the military’s view of presidential leadership remains doubtful. When asked if they approved or disapproved of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq , 40 percent said they approved, 38 percent said they disapproved and the rest either said they had no opinion or declined to answer. Those ratings are only marginally better than last year, when the president’s approval among the military plummeted from a high of 63 percent in 2004.

[...]

And the troops, staunchly Republican and staunchly conservative, are increasingly skeptical about how well Bush handles presidential duties overall. Only 48 percent approve; 34 percent disapprove.

With more military political donations going to Ron Paul, and to Obama, than to McCain. That's in the context of:

[...] Similarly, in 2003 nearly two-thirds said we should have gone to war in Iraq ; today only 46 percent feel that way. Again, that is only marginally better than last year, when 41 said we should have gone to war in Iraq

So it's unclear that there's going to be huge enthusiasm in the military vote for John McCain, even if that may seem counter-intuitive.

In a non-sequitur, Spencer Ackerman has a good piece on Clinton's stances on Iraq.

[Gary Farber]

Hilzoy, 1:24 a.m.: "Plus, I suspect [Obama] has more money."

Me, too.

It's hard to dispute that the fundraising story from January was Democrat Barack Obama's announcement last week that he had raised $32 million for the month -- a number that dwarfs any monthly total he or his rivals posted during the course of last year.

[...]

Now, that mystery appears to be solved -- Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told NBC's Tim Russert this evening that her campaign raised "about 13 million, $13.5 million" last month.

[Xeynon]

And I'm not saying there's no possibility of McCain winning here: but I think it's highly unlikely against Obama, and rather unlikely against Clinton. The state has rejected Republicans in a huge way over the course of the last half of the reign of Bushism.

It seems it has, which undoubtedly has something to do with Bush. But once he's no longer the nominal head of the party, I'm skeptical that that trend continues - I know it's been gentrifying to an extent, but Colorado is still a pretty rural/libertarian/conservative state on the whole, and Bush did win it fairly easily in 2004. That said, I agree with you about Obama having a better chance than Hillary - his way of framing the issues as patriotic imperatives, his gift for not coming off as an east coast liberal elitist, and his charisma will serve him really well in states like Colorado. Hillary, being completely lacking in those gifts, I think will have a MUCH more difficult time of it, particularly against McCain.

[OCSteve]

Gary: Thanks for the first-hand reporting. It adds an element of interest for me I don’t normally get. (And an element of OMG this is how we pick presidential candidates?!?)

[KCinDC]

Gary, I'm pretty sure Hilzoy was talking about disappointment with Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, not nationwide.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Wake up, people. We've won the Presidency already. There has never been a chance that McCain could win more than 100 electoral votes against either Hilary or Obama. It's going to be a Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Dole level blow-out.

The question is 'down-ticket' races. Yes, Hilary will get more people showing up to vote against her, but not enough to turn the tide at the top of the ticket. Where she will hurt us is in close Congressional races -- and there aren't many 'red' districts that WON'T be close this year. That's the 'political' reason for supporting Obama. (The real reason is that he'll be a much better President. "The most inspiring political figure in my lifetime." to quasi-quote Mark Kleiman.)

All either of them have to do -- and they should start today -- is to keep challenging McCain on his opinion of Bush, and to show how much a joke his claim of 'straight talking' is -- and to pin him down on his willingness to accept support from the mangiest Conservatives.

We aren't running against McCain 2000. He's older, sicker, and his reputation is already tarnished, and '100 years of Iraq" is a killer.

[KCinDC]

show how much a joke his claim of 'straight talking' is

Good luck with that. The media love for McCain seems as strong as ever, and I've seen no indication that any debunking of his "straight talk" and "principles" will get traction. Where are you getting your confidence in the beatability of St. McCain, favorite of the media and of independents?

[hilzoy]

Fwiw: yes, I did mean to suggest that Patrick hurt Obama in MA, not nationally.

[KCinDC]

DC also votes the same day, with 38 delegates. I'm guessing Obama will at least edge it, if not blow it out.

I think you're right about the result, but unfortunately only 15 of those delegates are apportioned on the basis of the primary results. The other 23 are superdelegates. We're overloaded with them in DC because a lot of DNC members live here. Like the superdelegates nationally, ours include a lot of Clinton supporters. The numbers at DemConWatch currently show the breakdown as 3 for Obama, 11 for Clinton, and 9 undeclared. I'm hoping we can persuade at least the elected officials among them to support the winner of the DC primary.

My guess for the DC delegates chosen Feb 12 is that the district-level delegates (DC is split into two 5-delegate "congressional districts" for the purpose of this primary) will go 6-4 for Obama, or 7-3 if he does really well in the eastern part of the city. The at-large delegates will almost certainly be split 3-2 (because they're in two sets, so those will have to be split 2-1 and 1-1).

[Gary Farber]

"Fwiw: yes, I did mean to suggest that Patrick hurt Obama in MA, not nationally."

Ah.

"Wake up, people. We've won the Presidency already."

Oh, good, we can all go back to sleep. Pardon me if I comnpletely ignore your incredibly bad advice.

[Gary Farber]

I entirely forgot the funniest moment of the night last night.

As the 43 people of Precinct 99 were sitting in the high school classroom, variously taking up all the class seats, and the teacher's desk, one couple had brought their two-year-old.

As the meeting leader said, "we're ready to take the first straw poll, so we'll ask for a show of hands as to who is for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and so on...."

And the baby utters "O-bam-a. Ooo-bammmm-aaaaa."

And everyone cracks up.

[bc]

CNN just called Utah for Romney. This needs a joke to be made about it.

Whatever joke there might be on Republican side, what of the Democratic result in Utah:

Obama 56 to Hillary 39.5

[Gary Farber]

Here's a little background on the recent Colorado political changes, if anyone's interested.

I'd also emphasize that evironmentalism is a huge issue out here, and to a fair degree across party lines, although certainly only so far.

Also, some recent Colorado polling. There's a map of both country results and margin of victory here. A report on Colorado exit polls.

Which is interesting, but I hadn't realized the economy was dominating to this point:

[...] Given three choices, half of Democratic primary voters picked the economy, three in 10 chose the war in Iraq, and the remaining two in 10 chose health care.

I'm not surprised at the economy coming first, but I'm a bit surprised it's so overwhelming over the other two issues.

But, also interestingly:

Hillary Rodham Clinton led among voters most concerned about the economy and health care, while Barack Obama led among those voters concerned about Iraq.

So Obama's main issue came last, but he still came first. It doesn't surprise me that his support seems to be, therefore, more character-based than issue-based, but that's what it looks like. However, I'd also note that this is the crudest possible level of data, and that it's not wise to draw any firm conclusions without teasing a lot more detail out of far more data.

On the debate on another thread:

[...] But what if the other one wins? Just half of Democrats who voted for Clinton said they would be satisfied if Obama won, while just half of Obama voters said they would be satisfied if Clinton won.

Note that not "satisfied" isn't anything like "won't work to elect." I won't be satisfied if Clinton wins, but I'll work to elect her, with vast disappointment in my heart.

[GNZ]

I guess there is no going back now - but in the end disenfranchisement should trump "fairness to a candidate".*

Imagine if there was an election and both candidates agreed Hispanic people should not be able to vote and then they had the election and you had a chance to overturn that old decision...

If 'hey I thought that their vote's didn't count" is a defense then why not arguments like "the public voted for the wrong person" - of course super delegates may well say exactly that.

*yes I know this is a candidate selection process and not a proper election and I suppose that has some relevance. As does arguments about why they felt they needed to not allow those delegates.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I did NOT say we could 'go back to sleep.' We have the much more important task of getting the largest possible majority in Congress -- and my first argument against HRC is that her nomination would hurt that goal.

However, John McCain has as much chance of winning this election as Mondale, Dole, McGovern or Landon did of winning their races.

The 'media's infatuation with McCain?' No. There is a little bit of this left, but remember that much of this came because he was the alternative to GWB, who reporters -- for good reason -- hated and feared.

Much of the rest came from his personality, from the environment he created for the press. (Hey, if I'd been a reporter 'on the bus' in 2000 I might have liked the guy too. And since then, he's never been under the scrutiny of a campaign like this. They believed the 'straight talk express' line, and people often fall for the idea that 'maybe we don't agree with what he says but at least he's talking his mind." (I'm old enough to remember that, in 1968, a lot of people were impressed by BOTH Eugene McCarthy and George Wallace for that reason alone -- there were even many who listed them as their top two choices, even though they disagreed on everything.)

The reporters are catching on to the fact that his bus has become the 'Corkscrew Express,' and his vaunted 'independence' was *ahem* highly limited.

But McCain 2008 is not McCain 2000. He's a lot more than eight years older, and it shows. His 'biting sense of humor' has turned into a sour and ugly tone, and his temper has become well-known. People are beginning to understand why he is far from popular with his colleagues. (And remember, a lot of the reporters who will be covering him were in college or high school in 2000 and don't have the memory of his previous 'charm' clouding their vision. Something tells me the portrait of him that will be coming out will be less favorable.

But it's not just his personality. Bush won -- I won't get into a discussion about whether his victories were legitimate here because it is past history -- and only won by incredibly narrow margins because he had the Republican base with him, particularly the Limbaugh/Coulter dittoheads and the religious right crackpots, he had the Rove attack machine, he had the Republican establishment with him, and he had (particularly in 2004) the 'social issues' (meaning, mostly homophobia and opposition to gay marriage) and the War on his side. (It's still hard for people to vote against a sitting President in wartime, even if they hate the war.)

MC CAIN HAS NONE OF THESE.

A major proportion of the radio radicals are cursing McCain with every butyl mercaptan scented effusion. (Limbaugh and Coulter have even stated they'd rather vote for Hillary. Sure, they'll change, but at least a portion of their audience will obey Directive A rather than Directive B from their 'great and glorious leaders.')

The establishment won't go that far, but they'll applaud politely and turn away when the hat is being passed. The Bushites hate him for what he said about their hero, his colleagues don't like someone who (to quote Ari Fleischer) "walks up to you, sticks his finger in your chest, and roars 'I'm right, you're wrong, and here's why.'" And the rest simply -- and rightfully -- don't trust someone who was ready to bolt the party.

The radical religious don't like his divorce, and how it happened -- and while they are still important, the loss of their leaders through death or scandal has lessened their impact -- they won't go Hillary, but they'll return to pre-1970 uninvolvement.

And Karl Rove was "Bush's Brain" not the party's brain. He's not going to be orchestrating the attacks or investigating the interesting possibilities in the Diebold machine.

And the War is no longer a positive. "100 years of Iraq" alone would probably be enough to cost him the election.

And homophobia doesn't work very well with the voters who were too young to vote in 2000, who grew up with Gay-Straight Alliances in their schools. Or with a lot of their parents who have gotten used to gays and gay couples as litigants on PEOPLE's COURT, participants in reality show contests, and, in many cases in their workplaces. Gays aren't as frightening to as many people as they were now they have become familiar parts of the everyday world.

Independents? McCain is making a speech today to a major conservative group. Other candidates can get away with 'throwing red meat to the base' and their statements can be ignored as politics as usual. But McCain's appeal is that (supposedly) he 'speaks his mind' which means every outrageous statement he makes can be thrown back into his teeth. (And I can't wait to hear how he responds to "do you consider yourself the preserver of Bush's legacy, or the corrector of his mistakes?" Either way he hurts himself.)

And it is a Democratic year to begin with. Even a 'better' candidate would probably lose. (Those 29 retiring Republican Congressmen aren't trying to position themselves for posts in a McCain administration. And look at Tuesday -- in even the reddest states, more Democrats turned out than Republicans. More exciting candidates? Sure. Candidates that inspired voters? Sure. Think about what that means.)

Go to sleep? HELL NO! We have to work, for the biggest Congressional majority, the biggest victory we can manage, to utterly repudiate the Bush years, and -- if the candidate is, sadly, Hillary -- to give her the courage to actually try to make good on her promises.

But I've spent 50 years watching liberals being proud of being right, but being sure they'd lose, and fighting for a 'moral victory.'

I want us to fight for the real victory we'll get.