I agree with John. The boy has GOT to cross the finish line in SOME state soon.
Kerry, Edwards, and Clark all have victories somewhere now. Dean’s got diddly right now.
From Rueters tonight:
Note that Dean is still ahead of Edwards in the delegate count. But Kerry is essentially at 2x his nearest rival. It’s a race for second place, and I predict Clark will be the next casualty*. At this point it appears that Edwards has more staying power than Dean.
Lieberman dropped out tonight as I predicted, but I’m not expecting any genius awards for that. 
*Ignoring the inconsequential bids from Sharpton and Kucinich.
The key there is the superdelegates. Dean’s got 11 delegates from Iowa, 9 from NH, and he picked up a mere 7 last night. (Complete delegate scorecard here.) So the vast majority of Dean’s delegate total consists of party pols who jumped in and endorsed Dean when his tide was running high. Since he can’t win or even stay viable by picking up more superdelegates, which won’t happen anyway, his delegate total is illusory. Edwards (80) and Clark (48) are both outpacing Dean (27) in the count of delegates won as a result of primary and caucus voting.
But it’s ironic, isn’t it? The party outsider, being propped up by support from the party establishment he ran against.
It depends on Dean’s level of sheer obstinacy. Dean could decide to hang in there until the bitter end, regardless of his failure to win anything, which I predict will continue. I can’t see him even coming in second in any of this next week’s states (MI, WA, ME, TN, VA) except for Maine.
JC’s right - at some point he has to win somewhere. Clark’s now got a win, which lets him stay at the table (without looking churlish or ridiculous) at least through Super Tuesday. (That’s March 2, when CA, NY, OH, MA, MD, GA, CT, RI, and VT all vote.) Dean could outlast Clark, but only by refusing to see the handwriting on the wall. I predict Dean will go into Super Tuesday in fourth place in the ‘delegates won from primary/caucus voting’ count, if he hasn’t yet conceded. And I don’t think he will.
The big question now is:
Can Kerry win TN or VA next week. I feel reasonably confident he can take the other more northern states. But he needs to show he can take some southern states to put Edwards in his place.
If Edwards takes both VA and TN then it’s time for the Kerry camp to try to cut a deal with Edwards quick.
RTF: Point noted about Dean’s delegates. I should have pointed that out in my original post.
JC:
I’m not too familiar with TN, but VA is a very different animal than SC. It’s technically a southern state, but not in the sense that SC is. It’s got a good amount of high tech industry, and one could reasonably argue that Northern VA is in a world of its own. I don’t think the southern boy strategy will help Edwards very much there.
It is interesting to watch which states Kennedy dares set foot in to help out Kerry. Funny how we didn’t see him in SC.
The Deaniacs are a little silly with the delegate count. Imagine for a moment if you will that you have endorsed Dean as a cantidate. At the moment it would be foolish to let go, because there are a lot more delegates to be given out, but it is important to realize that they aren’t stupid. If Dean has 100 superdelegates at the end and 200 regular delegates, why would the superdelegates stay with Dean? I highly doubt that Dean’s supporters would like a JFK victory, considering the bad things that have happened between the two. Now what if JRE was within 100 delegates of beating Kerry? I know this isn’t certain, but it would be possible Imagine if you will that Dean manages to grab, say, another 200 pledged delegates from here and there through various third place finishes. It could happen although that the Dean superdelegates could block a kerry nomination. If I were Dean I would rather see Edwards than Kerry. Dean and Kerry have been mortral enemies from the start, and Dean could possible get a good position in the Edwards admin if he were to send his superdelegates still loyal to him to Edwards. The only way that Dean’s delegates will matter (if he doesn’t have a shot, which looks more and more likely every day) is if he decides to use them to decide a close outcome. Otherwise it would be a brokered convention where anything could happen. I am not sure how it could turn out.
I think Clark’s win in OK badly hurt Edwards. It keeps Clark in the race, and now Clark and Edwards will split the vote of Southern Democrats. That may well allow Kerry to slip in some victories in Southern states. Virginia in particular comes to mind.
Of course, it’s still conceivable that Edwards and Clark could join forces at some point. Their combined delegate count down the road might present a real challenge to Kerry. Plus, you will recall that both Edwards and Clark have received the implicit blessings of Bill Clinton at different points, so maybe the big guy could broker a merger of their campaigns.
I still say the Democrats are committing suicide if they nominate Kerry.
No prob.
I’ve lived most of my life in VA, and while it’s certainly not as southern as SC (which I also have a few years’ worth of familiarity with), the more southern parts of the state still dominate its politics, despite NoVa.
I’ll also say this: my observation is that northern Virginia, in and of itself, is more conservative than the Maryland suburbs of DC. I think the conservatives in the DC area just gravitate in that direction.
To sum up, I think Edwards’ southernness will help him a great deal in VA. But VA also has its share of military bases, hence military families and lots of ex-military folks. That can’t exactly hurt Kerry or Clark. Should be an interesting race.
My familiarity with TN extends only as far as Upper East Tennessee, as they call it - the Tri-Cities area and environs. But Survey USA has Kerry ahead of Clark, Edwards, and Dean there, 31-26-20-15%.
All of you Dems rushing merrily about, caught up in the furor of primary campaigning might want to stop and notice one thing ( and this is my prediction ): As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue should the two face off in the big dance, and the Christian Majority down south will lap it up. It’s one issue that’s even bigger than the Iraq war, swinging a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters who are unhappy with the President’s lies back onto the Pubbie bandwagon. If Edwards dosen’t get the nomination, it’s done. Bush wins another 4 years.
Hooey. The same subset of people who would * base their vote for President * on THIS issue is exactly the same subset of people who would vote for Bush come hell or highwater * anyway. *
I just realized something. You really are baffled at the way the rest of the country outside California works, aren’t you? Truly puzzled that the ultra, ultra liberal environs in which you exist aren’t universal? Lemmie tell you something, there are millions of people who are leaning towards moderate views in traditionally conservative areas of the country who could flock to a dynamic Democratic candidate. My mom is an example, conservative Christian, solid Republican, she expressed doubts about voting for Bush a few months ago because she was disturbed that he had lied about WMD, something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. She is exactly the type of voter that the Dems need to attract to have any chance in November. You want to know something else? The issue of gay marriage is far, far more important to her than the lies the President told. If you got out into the real world, you’d find a dozen like her in every diner and McDonalds in the country. I don’t like it, personally, but that’s the reality. Gay marriage is much more of a hot button for people than vague lies about WMD in distant parts of the world. It’s not the 700 Club that I’m talking about, they’re going for Bush no matter what, like you said. It’s the people who fall between the rabid fundies and the Christmas and Easter Christians that I’m talking about, and there are a LOT of them down south.
Stoid: I think The Left should be equally concerned about the “get-out-the-vote” factor this is going to have on the Religious Right. It’s hard to say how many middle-of-the-roaders are going to tip towards Bush becuase of this, but it certainly is not going to help the Democratic candidate-- that’s for sure.
I’m confused. John Kerry is also against gay marriage (just a few seconds ago saw him quoted again on CNN about it)–will the problem be that he’s not AS opposed to it as Dubya?
Buffled and puzzled, yes. Unaware of the facts, no.
I am very aware of this. Hence my strong preference for Wesley Clark.
And she is unusual in this, with respect to the idea that she would make her decisions based on it.
The latest poll I read, I believe it can be found on pollingreport.om, shows that the country is about half and half on the issue. Big surprise…not. My point is that those for whom the issue is a make or break, either way, are a much smaller chunk of the electorate. Most people know that the president isn’t going to be deciding that issue, so why base one’s vote on it? (And even if he WAS, why base one’s vote on it? You telling me your mom would vote for a guy who would do ten things she hates but who won’t support gay marriage over a guy who would do ten things she loves but supports gay marriage? All due respect to your mom: that’s ridiculous. And I fear for this country if a truly siginificant percentage of people in it think like that. And I repeat: people who do would pick Bush in any case.)
I think the economy has hurt enough people badly enough over the last three years that a lot of those who might be inclined to vote for Bush because they think he will somehow prevent gay marriage, will vote Democratic just to get some money in their pockets. Pocketbook issues trump social issues for all but the fanatics.
Let me see if I can clarify what I am saying here. If the Dems have an opportunity with some traditionally Republican voters(my mom, for example) who have started to entertain doubts about the President(she dosen’t like that he lied and would consider voting for someone else), presenting them with a candidate representing a state that just mandated marriage for gay folks(and no matter how hard Kerry tries to distance himself personally from it, you know the Pubbie spinmeisters are going to run with it far and long) is not the place to start. It negates the “crack” in support for Bush from the get go and perhaps even closes it a bit. Nowhere did I say that this was a hot button topic, or the deciding topic, or the only thing upon which a decision would be based, but it is a strike right off the bat and, it being a domestic issue, is more immediate and personal to a lot of people (why I don’t know, but it is. Gay folks marring won’t effect me or any other hetero couple I know in the least, but there it is). This is not the place to start when you are trying to unseat a (still) fairly popular incumbant, and I do think it will make enough of a difference in most southern states that are closely contested (a relitively small number of votes, relative to the total votes cast, can swing it one way or the other), making Kerry unelectable in the South.
This Democrat agrees with you, Weirddave. In fact my Dad is in pretty much the same boat as your Mom. Traditional Republican voter, but he is displeased with Bush. He has expressed admiration for Edwards, and might even vote for him if he were nominated. At the very least he would probably abstain, denying Bush his vote. But if Kerry runs? Chalk him up as a Bush vote.
The difference between Massachusetts and the rest of the country was drawn in stark terms yesterday. On the same day the Massachusetts Supreme Court was handing down its ruling on gay marriage, the legislature in Ohio, a critical swing state, was finalizing one of the strongest bans on same-sex unions in the country.
Kerry is personally opposed to gay marriage? Won’t matter. The fact that he is from the same state that gave us Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and now the gay marriage ruling will be enough to destroy him with swing voters. The ruling only reinforces the “Northeastern Liberal” perception. We might wish that it were not so, but I am out here in swing-voter land, and I can tell you that it IS so.
If Kerry is nominated, the ticket goes down in flames.
While we’re talking about our parents’ voting preferences, I might as well chime in. My mother is a lifelong Republican and has plenty of misgivings about voting for Bush—whom she reluctantly voted for in 2000. The war has not helped her opinion of the Bush administration, and the fact that he’s been raping the economy also turns her off. I quote her: “I don’t think he’s up to the job [of president].” She’s been living and voting in my native western Pennsylvania since 1956—definite swing voter territory in a crucial, vote-rich state.
That said, she doesn’t like Kerry. Gay marriage doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to her. My father, a lifelong Democrat and very devout Roman Catholic, doesn’t like Bush either, and the gay marriage issue doesn’t change things in his estimation. (For the record, Dad doesn’t give a damn that Kerry’s Catholic, though that probably will make a difference to some people.)
Both my parents are somewhat conservative, and neither has warm feelings toward Bush. The western Pennsylvanian economy has been through the wringer, thanks to Bush and his famous steel tariffs, and that particular swing territory is unswayed by some abstract fear of gays in committed relationships. I agree that Bush’s passionate opposition toward gay marriage won’t make much difference to anyone, though it might help him to rally his base somewhat. If the Bush campaign makes gay marriage a big issue in the campaign, he’ll succeed in further polarizing the electorate, and will probably do himself more harm than good.
spoke, your point about the Ohio state legislature so actively working to ban gay marriage is worth noting, but I don’t think it adequately reflects the priorities of the bulk of Ohioans. Remember that the Republican Party controls both houses of the Ohio legislature, and Governor Taft is a Republican and a strong ally of Bush. Most Ohioans don’t really care about the issue, which is why it can be pushed through without much fuss. Most Ohioans are more concerned that the steel and automobile industries are in such dire shape, and that jobs are disappearing everywhere from Ashtabula to Youngstown. If Pennsylvania or Michigan still had Republican governors, I’m sure you’d see this gay marriage legislation being pushed through in Harrisburg and Lansing right now. Republican governors who want to remain in good standing with the Bush administration will push for this sort of thing, and a Republican-controlled legislature in their states help this. It’s nothing but a calculated political move by those who crave the blessings of their party elites; this won’t have any bearing on the electorate or on the presidential election.
So…
Question for the day: Will Cheney’s being hit on two sides (his Chief of Staff in the Plame thing and Halliburton bribery) have a significant effect on the election?
And FYI…my pal with the 500-1 odds is beginning to sweat. He’s asking about buy-outs.
OK, the TIMES mentioned yesterday that Kerry is still anti-marriage but pro-civil unions and would not support a constitutional amendment to ban the marriages; he also voted against DOMA along with most Northeastern politicians.
Frankly, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to have to deal with it much at all and wishes it had never come up so he had to commit to the record, because it’s guaranteed to alienate large swaths of the country no matter what you say. But a defining issue? Not unless Bush makes it one.