Schmooper Tuesday

Was anyone else up too late, drinking too much, watching the returns? Any observations on Wolf Blitzer’s hair? The newspapers seem to be declaring Obama/Clinton a draw. Do you agree?

Also, check it out: I took pictures of where I voted yesterday and put them up on the New York Times Polling Place Photo Project. What was it like where you voted?

26 responses to “Schmooper Tuesday”

  1. Scotty says:

    My favorite comment of the night was by E.J. Dionne: “It seems that Romney is doing really well in the states in which he’s lived. I recommend that he get on the phone and start building in California immediately.” That was approximately what he said anyway.

    I think Obama is actually is a better position, given that he’s predicted to win the next few states. The number of super delegates in play are what freak me out. It’s like the Dems’ own Electoral College.

  2. Dave says:

    I like E.J. Dionne.

    The superdelegates usually end up voting for the person with the most regular delegates at the convention, right? I can’t see them throwing the nomination to Clinton when it would otherwise go to Obama.

    I think I should give Obama some money. Of course, last time I donated the guy (Edwards) dropped out two weeks later.

  3. Scotty says:

    According to CNN, Obama is leading Clinton in regular delegates 603-590, but she is leading him in super delegates 193-106, giving her a total lead of 74.

    I donated to Obama on Monday. Last night the CNN folks were saying that Obama’s beating Clinton three dollars to one in fundraising. That was pretty surprising.

  4. Dave says:

    Yeah, but the super delegates can change their minds right up to the convention. Those totals are just counting public commitments by politicians, and thus should not be relied upon.

  5. Scotty says:

    Yes, that’s my point. They can do what ever the heck they want. And who knows what Edwards’ delegates are gonna do.

    My word! We may have a real-life debacle on our hands!!

  6. Marleyfan says:

    I was predicting a big Clinton win last night, but I’m glad I was wrong. I hope the Obama “surge” will continue until the convention.

    I did recieve a call from Hillarly last night, asking if I would accept as her VP, but I told her I was still waiting for Obama’s call first, and I’d have to get back to her…

  7. WW says:

    I liked it when that chick (who?) told Bill Richardson his beard was very “Justin TImberlake.”

  8. LP says:

    I wish I’d taken a photo at my polling place in West Hollywood. The woman who registered me was about 75 years old. She had jet-black hair, fuschia eyeshadow applied from the bridge of her nose to her temples, heavy mascara, a black goth dress, and a red dog collar with silver studs around her neck. Her nametag read “Cleopatra.”

    Lots of people voting, lots of people wandering around with their “I voted” stickers yesterday. People seem excited.

  9. brooke says:

    Last night was pretty exciting alright. And I cope to some seriously wine soaked cobwebs this AM too. I voted via absentee ballot as I normally do, but at around 4PM yesterday I went out for a run, and decided to stop by all the precincts along my route to see how things were going. Turnout was kind of light in my ‘hood (I’m in the TL, though, and I don’t think a lot of crackheads vote, plus a lot of people absentee here). So no problems with running out of ballots here, but south of here the turn out was so big that they ran out of ballots in a couple of places. Besides that, no big irregularities.

    In terms of outcome, I was a little bit disappointed by Obama’s performance in CA, but in the grand scheme of things, I think he did great. He was way behind a month ago, and he pulled pretty close. The Obama folks here say they wanted to keep it w/i 50 delegates in California, which he did I think.

    As for the tie nationwide, I think it’s a dead heat alright. Obama won a wide variety of states, won more states and won more delegates, although he didn’t get the big states. But If you look at the breakdown of votes, you’ll notice that Obama barely lost California in a lot of counties – and Edwards had a good chunk (like 5-10%). I suspect a lot of those votes were absentee, and might have gone to Obama if they hadn’t already voted. That’s pure speculation (and wishful thinking).

    The only disappointment is Massachusetts, I think. The reason I say that is the Kennedy endorsement, and the fact the Clinton won largely b/c she owned Boston and the northern part of the state. Generally, Obama is winning the cities, so Boston is a drag to lose.

    Overall, a thriller! If you haven’t seen it already, the Times has some gorgeous map-based interactive visualizations (as always) to explore how things broke down. You can slice and dice the data in a variety of ways, and drill down to the county level. It’s fresh.

  10. Natasha says:

    Brooke, I can’t wait for more of your posts. If GW was Facebook, I’d join “The fans of Brooke” application and to think of that “Fans of Literacy posting on Mondays” too.

  11. brooke says:

    That’s the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day, thanks Natasha!

  12. Scotty says:

    Romney’s pulling out!

  13. Scotty says:

    Here’s the link.

  14. well, romney’s handed it over to mccain. can we start thinking about how either clinton or obama needs to work in order to keep this nutjob out of the whitehouse? i find it hard to believe that even the republican faithful are keyed into romney’s and mccain’s message about keeping this war alive — for 100 years if need be, as mccain put it. after all, republicans are losing their kids too — maybe in greater numbers. can they really hope to win on a pro-war message?

  15. brooke says:

    It’s hard to say what the republicans will do with McCain. Did you hear his speech at the CPAC yesterday? He was getting booed on his various ‘maverick’ stances. Will the right wing maniacs who rally around Bush, et al really vote for a ‘republican’ that isn’t pro-life, has a less than fascist perspective on immigration, and actually considered being a running made of John “Swift Boat” Kerry?

    All McCain has going for him with the conservative base is his stance on the war, a war which is not presently in total clusterf*** mode. But that could change in an instant. That and his name isn’t Hillary.

    It’s hard to say who a better candidate is against McCain. Hillary will energize the conservatives to vote against her, and in theory Obama will be more competitive in the independent demographic. But when there’s a real chance that McCain could win, what’s the safe Democratic vote? Two months ago I’d say it was Hillary, but now I’m not so sure — I’m not so sure there is a safe Democratic vote.

  16. bryan says:

    when you look at the numbers from super tuesday, democrats turned out two to one to republicans. if that kind of apathy on their part carries over — and not being enthused about mccain could really work for us here — we may be in good shape?

  17. Stephanie Wells says:

    I heard some random voter on the radio today say that he’s a conservative first, a Republican second–and would never vote for John McCain because of it. As in, would rather not vote at all. This can only help. But, I also heard McCain in that same broadcast say that he is against abortion. He can’t exactly claim otherwise and expect a single conservative vote now, can he?

  18. Scotty says:

    McCain is in an interesting (and I’m sure unsettling) position in that he has to move a little farther to the right in order to win the general election. This is counterintuitive because usually candidates try to appeal to their party’s base during the nominating process and center themselves in a general election.

    What this means is that since most Americans are centrists both Obama and Clinton have a slight leg-up in a November. At least this is what I hope. McCain’s general election strategy may get mired in proving and re-proving his conservative credentials. Ultimately, he may get swift boated by his own party — let’s keep our fingers crossed.

  19. Dave says:

    I think McCain is quite anti-choice. Movement conservatives don’t like him because he advocated campaign-finance reform and voted against at least one of the Bush tax cuts. And he’s not really anti-immigrant, but neither is Bush. McCain is really frighteningly right-wing on many issues, though.

  20. Ruben Mancillas says:

    Dave called it, McCain is absolutely a fire breathing nut job type of conservative to my way of thinking but it’s scary how a few things, namely campaign finance reform, have doomed him with true believers like Norquist. Though he may project an improved degree of substance and integrity next to a clown like Bush (who wouldn’t, right?) I am surprised that so many people claim him as a “straight talking” quasi-moderate because of his image as a so-called “maverick”

    We’ve touched on gender and race, any thoughts on how McCain’s age (72 in November) might play out?

  21. Eric Jones says:

    I doubt McCain’s age will be a factor. Worrying about someone in his seventies was so eighties. Even Obama’s great line–something like, “we should all be grateful for Sen. McCain’s half-century of public service”–I doubt is going to persuade many to really worry if McCain’s physically up for a White House stint.

    And in the end, or come November, I think McCain will get the full support of the conservative establishment. Remember, the next pres will likely get three Supreme Court nominations, a fact which, when conservatives think of Hillary — or even Obama — will scare the hell out of them and scare them into supporting McCain. “I won’t vote for McCain, I won’t vote for McCain, I won’t . . . okay, where’s his ballot. . .” Granted, some will stay home, but the movement will eventually tell them to support the Man.

    Which brings up the question, who’s the Dem’s best candidate to beat him? Were I a praying man, I’d pray the Dems don’t shoot themselves in the foot (a la Swift Boat Kerry, so to speak) and nominate someone who will frighten all but the faithful. Obama may be more liberal than Hillary–who would rush to the center once a nomination were secured–but Obama nevertheless would not unite the conservatives in a passionate tizzy as Hilliary would.

    Also, Obama is, in some ways, what Romney wanted to be but wasn’t: trustworthy; all-American; a self-made man; someone who-makes-us-feel-good-about-ourselves-just-for-voting-for-him. Even conservative-leaning independents find him attractive. The Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs can’t hate him, though they hate his politics.

    I think Obama would be, by far, the more electable Dem.

  22. Jeremy says:

    So Obama keeps rolling. Is it naive of me to be so excited?

    Incidentally, there’s something I don’t understand. Supposedly, Hillary has been relying on the big donors pledging the $2,300 limit, while Obama has been raising tons of cash in smaller donations, presumably from lower-income donors. Yet, everyone keeps talking about how Hillary’s supporters are all blue-collar workers while Obama supposedly has the more “educated,” affluent elite giving him money. I know that he’s also got the young’uns, but it seems like a strange contradiction to me… 4 states in a row after shmooper tuesday!

  23. Jeremy says:

    I forgot to mention the Virgin Islands!

  24. Cynthia says:

    Jeremy, I agree it is exciting and yes pre-mature but I definetly think he will be on the ballet instead of clinton. Bryan, I agree with you that we do something so that McCain does not win. On the republician side he has a huge fan base and the democrats right now are split. The democrats need to get a clear choice and then we can have a serious election. I do for Obama

  25. bw says:

    I do for Obama

    that should be a tshirt

  26. Scotty says:

    Do you mean I’d do Obama?

    The man is HOTTT.