That site seems a bit out-of-date too at the moment. Only gives Kerry 5 delegates from Michigan and 6 from Washington. The NY Times delegate count says that delegates from those two states are not formally awarded until later this year… that or delays in getting the exact tally could explain the difference.
Okay, it’s been updated now.
Michigan: Kerry 96, Dean 25, Edwards 7, Sharpton 7, Clark 1, Kucinich 0.
In Washington, it was Kerry 53, Dean 36, everybody else: bupkis.
So, counting those (and I guess some new endorsements), here’s the way it looks:
Kerry 409, Dean 173, Edwards 116, Clark 82, Sharpton 12, Kucinich 2.
Are you honestly naieve enought to believe that it is not visceral feelings that win elections rather than actual substance? You’re almost 50 years old, I had credited you with enough intelegence to realize these things by now, sheesh! It sucks, but that’s the way the world works IRL.
Quiz: when was the last presidential election in which Virginia went Democratic?
Two things:
-
I have no idea where you’re getting this from what I’ve posted. Please quote, and be as selective as you like.
-
I’m losing track here of what you’re arguing. Is it (a) hot(-button issue) or is it not? Here, you seem to have swung back to the affirmative.
It was 1964.
1964, and before that, 1948. The 1964 win was probably due more to Johnson’s landslide and Goldwater’s dud of a campaign. Do you have a point, or are we just playing Trivial Pursuit now?
It may seem unlikely, in light of Virginia’s having landed in the Republican column in so many elections, that it’ll go Democratic in 2004 or any other time soon. And I’ll concede that it probably will go Republican—but I’d say the tide is turning in Virginia. The Republicans have won it safely for the past twenty years, but I’d say the Democrats are still in striking distance. What with the demographics of the northern part of the state changing to a more Democratic electorate, as well as the growing population there, I’d say the Democrats have a better chance. They also elected a Democratic governor in 2001, which always helps a party’s statewide strategy. Odds still favor the Republicans here, but this state is changing. I count the Old Dominion as potentially vulnerable Red territory, and a possible Democratic pickup in the South. Not as likely to go Democratic as North Carolina or Arkansas, but still potential Democratic territory.
The MI/WA results validate my prediction that Dean would gain some momentum and outlast (or outpoll) Edwards. It’s funny how Edwards is harping on how Kerry can’t win in the South, but Edwards can’t seem to win anywher but the South. And that was only SC, to boot.
We should see some big changes after Tues.
Well, you know I agree. 
I’m wondering if Clark and Edwards’s decisions to sit out Michigan, Washington and Maine are going to prove to be mistakes like Clark and Lieberman’s choices to sit out Iowa. Kerry’s managed to widen his lead, pick up easy wins and momentum that actually has him leading them in Virginia and Tennessee, the states they’ve picked.
That would have been my hunch, too, except:
This was right after David Kay said there weren’t any WMDs over there.
Josh Marshall makes the point that what was obvious to those of us who’ve been following the issue closely - that there weren’t no WMDs - wasn’t so obvious to the bulk of the electorate. They may have wanted to believe the President, but Kay just made it a lot harder.
There’s something else that occurs to me: that people are uneasy about how the country’s being run, and whether their being BSed, on a whole bunch of issues, but there’s no smoking gun that says they’ve been lied to across the board. But when they think about these things at all, even if they’re not paying much attention, they can’t convince themselves that things are going well in Iraq, or that the war made sense, or that they’re going to be able to keep their jobs, or find a decent job if they don’t have one now, or that huge tax cuts or huge deficits make any sense, or that the prescription drug benefit is a real benefit and not just a sop, or that they’ll have decent health care themselves.
The reasons for uneasiness are much stronger and deeper than in, say, 1988 or 2000. And I doubt that it can be demagogued away: in 2004, that will look like avoidance more than anything else. My take is that voters want to believe that somebody’s minding the store; they want a President who’s making sure things are working so that they can pay attention to their own lives, rather than the workings of the nation. You’re the ship’s captain: you want to talk about gay marriage when the ship is sailing smoothly? People will listen, and it may score you some points. But if you try that when the passengers can see that the ship’s sailing through a flock of icebergs, they’ll get really, really nervous.
So if Bush & Co. want to make a big issue out of gay marriage, I say bring it on. It’ll shore up the base, but it’ll lose them the middle - not because they disagree with Bush on gay marriage, but because it will pile on to their growing impression of Bush’s insufficiency.
What worries me is the prospect of Bush’s pseudo-addressing problems like unemployment, the deficit, health care, the war, etc., in ways that look just real enough to skate him to a narrow victory this year. (He’s already pseudo-addressed the war and health care to varying extents, of course, but so far it doesn’t seem to be gaining him any traction.)
This doesn’t mean Bush will lose, of course. Another thing that could work for the Bush/Rove ticket is throwing enough mud at the Dem nominee so that the electorate wonders if the Dem is up to the job.
But the election’s becoming more and more of an even bet all the time.
Bricker, if you’re following this, I don’t drink Scotch. But I’m open to alternatives.
I’m getting pretty sick about hearing Edwards talk about how good he is in “his backyard”. Is he running for the presidency of The South? He’s starting to sound more and more like he’s running for VP. And Clark, with his invocation for voters to put him on “3rd base so he can take it home” needs to realize that he has to get on 1st base before he has a chance at 2nd, much less 3rd.
Unless Kerry is “found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy”, he’s got it.
Well, according to my predictions, which havn’t been that inaccurate, Edwards would be running for VP about now.
And Dean’s chance is just about over, but he’s going to be a powerbroker at the convention. So… yeah, barring a scandal, this one’s tied up. I’m interested in Bush being forced to start campaigning early, though.
I think he just might be scared. Not running scared, but scared enough to make a big deal about something he should look presidential and ignoe.
I think he’s running a little nervous, too. Again, he’s following the primary states making sure he recoups some of the losses from the beating he’s getting from the candidates.
Meessa no t’ink he be doin’ dat if’n he wassa secure!
And what about Gore? Is he now politically dead after backing Dean? He’s gotta be regretting that premature ejaculation…
A few random opinions:
-
Like JC and E-Sabbath said, Bush (or Rove) must be getting a bit nervous, otherwise they wouldn’t have trotted Bush out on Meet the Press. The Dems were supposed to be beating up on each other, but instead they’ve all been beating on Bush. Hard for them to fight too hard amongst themselves, when they don’t disagree on very much.
-
Dean won’t be any sort of power-broker at the convention. A few hundred delegates won’t mean much by then. Dean will lose in Wisconsin, and he’s said he’ll drop out if he loses there.
-
Edwards should have really tried to win (or at least be a strong second) in Michigan or Washington this past weekend. Kerry hasn’t won in the South yet, but Edwards has won only once anywhere. So it’ll pretty much be ballgame if Kerry wins both TN and VA tomorrow, which looks pretty likely.
-
JM - it depends on what you mean. Gore’s not likely to get another chance to run for President, no matter what: time moves on, the world changes, and somebody else winds up filling your role. So his Dean endorsement - which will have been forgotten by then anyway - won’t affect things.
Gore’s main Dem role, these days, is as a somewhat youthful older statesman. He’s got the freedom to say what he feels needs to be said, and have it taken seriously, without having to worry about how it affects his political future, now that he really doesn’t have one in the conventional sense. So he can say things that a candidate might not say, and other Dems can see how people react. That’s really not a bad position to be in, assuming he doesn’t want to be President.
I’d personally like to see him run for Senate from Tennessee again, one of these years. But I doubt he will.
I wasn’t clear on what I meant about Gore. Yeah, his chance to run for prez is long gone. But it was a BIG deal when he endorsed Dean. I wonder how much weight his endorsement will mean next time around. Or how much influence he will have in the party. With Clinton still around, he’s always going to be playing second fiddle at best.
Dean abruptly changed course about Wisconsin, but he still won’t win, and he’ll be that much more of a non-factor after not competing in two states tomorrow. He’s not going to be a power broker even if he stays after Wisconsin. Kerry can win this cleanly, and I think he’ll take the drama out of the proceedings tomorrow. After that, Kerry will have almost 3 times as many delegates as Dean does.
Among the things I’ve read- Clark may quit if he doesn’t win tomorrow, which polls say he won’t. Also, the Edwards people are apparently annoyed at Dean for deciding to not quit, because the more rivals Kerry has, the more they split the vote between them. I think Clark and Edwards have only hurt themselves by fighting each other over the Southern thing.
Tomorrow, it sounds like Kerry will win Tennessee and Virginia big (I think he’s up by about 12 or 14% in each state), which weakens Clark and Edwards’ claims that he can’t win there and makes them sound sort of unnecessary as the Southern alternatives. He’s already got a very big lead in Wisconsin, and two wins tomorrow should only increase it. So unless something really unusual happens, I think the race effectively ends tomorrow.
And that was going to be the JC poll question for the day…
Being a Virginian (for the next 24 hours) I voted on the way in to work today (I was number…SIX!)(No foolin’) and I voted for Edwards.
Mostly because I think Kerry has this thing wrapped up and Edwards would make an excellent VP choice for him. So I figured a message vote wouldn’t hurt.
Now I move to Ohio tomorrow. If I can I’ll vote in that primary, too.
Heh heh heh.
Hmmm. I’ve been debating with myself about doing this very thing next week in Wisconsin. I’d like to hear other people’s opinion about the wisdom of this action.
I believe Edwards will stay in it through Super Tuesday, regardless. He looks at Oklahoma and sees that 60% voted for either him or Clark. He’ll probably take a close look at the combined numbers for himself and Clark in TN and VA. If those combined figures are significantly higher than Kerry’s, Edwards will definitely stay in, thinking that when Clark is gone he’ll be able to pick up most of Clark’s voters.
The problem for Edwards is financing. I doubt he has the money to run much of a campaign outside the Southern states (though he is making a stand in Wisconsin), and without a win today he’s not likely to get a funding boost. At this point Edwards is just holding on and maybe hoping that some sort of scandal erupts to bring down Kerry. On that outside possibility, he wants to be the last Kerry alternative standing.