Super Tuesday

[IDBillzFan]

A throaway line in last night's coverage piqued my curiosity - Obama got something like 57% of the votes in the Oklahoma Dem primary, running basically unopposed.

You are correct. He had the same problem, I think, in Michigan and a couple of the other earlier states. But no one is openly discussing it.

 

And did you see Dennis Kucinich get canned last night in Ohio? A result of redistricting, yes, but Kucinich losing a Democratic primary? Are you kidding me? And his challenger will now be up against Joe the Plumber.

 

If Joe the Plumber ends up taking over Kucinich's seat, I'll crap purple Twinkies.

Edited March 7, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Magox]

You are correct. He had the same problem, I think, in Michigan and a couple of the other earlier states. But no one is openly discussing it.

 

And did you see Dennis Kucinich get canned last night in Ohio? A result of redistricting, yes, but Kucinich losing a Democratic primary? Are you kidding me? And his challenger will now be up against Joe the Plumber.

 

If Joe the Plumber ends up taking over Kucinich's seat, I'll crap purple Twinkies.

In the cleveland area? Fat chance

[Rob's House]

MARK IT ZERO, YOU WERE OVER THE LINE.

Put the !@#$in piece away; they're callin the cops, man.

[B-Man]

Four years ago, Democrats worried about the bitterness of the Obama–Clinton contest. .......They had some reason.

 

“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November’s election,” Gallop reported. “A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.”

 

But it didn’t happen.

[Joe Miner]

A throaway line in last night's coverage piqued my curiosity - Obama got something like 57% of the votes in the Oklahoma Dem primary, running basically unopposed.

 

So in my efforts to do some fact checking, I stumbled into a little problem. No major news outlets (major TV/cable networks, newspapers) are reporting the results of the Dem primaries. It's as if they do not exist.

 

Interestingly, only Fox had a headline that Obama lost the primary votes in 15 Oklahoma primaries.

 

Boston.com reported that Obama got 89% of the Mass vote, unopposed. Compared to Romney's 72% of Mass voters in a bit more contested primary.

 

I finally tracked down Dem results in Wiki. Great. It shows that in early primaries, Obama routinely got 98%+, but in more recent ones, he's gotten below 90%, including the thumping in Oklahoma. I wonder if the press will start covering the Dem primaries more?

 

The guy that was opposing Obama here in OK was horrendous. I would have voted for Obama over the other guy. Obama's opponent in OK was running TV ads showing aborted fetuses and making all sorts of crazy religious claims.

 

Watch if you dare (first video on the page):

 

http://www.terryforpresident.com/

 

He only got 57% in OK against this guy. People think conservatives don't like Romney. They hate Obama.

[Doc]

Four years ago, Democrats worried about the bitterness of the Obama–Clinton contest. .......They had some reason.

 

“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November’s election,” Gallop reported. “A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.”

 

But it didn’t happen.

People have (conveniently) short memories. It was no less contentious in 2008, and Hilly eventually withdrew from the race on June 7th. Romney should have the nom sewn up well before that date.

[DC Tom]

This should be news.

 

I can't recall anyone ever covering the incumbent's primaries, myself.

[John Adams]

This should be news.

 

Really? Do you see this as a trend that matters? The only people showing up to vote in the 2012 Dem primary are those voting for Lyndon Larouche and other fringe kooks. One thing you can be sure of: Obama has his base 100% locked in.

Edited March 7, 2012 by John Adams

[birdog1960]

You are correct. He had the same problem, I think, in Michigan and a couple of the other earlier states. But no one is openly discussing it.

 

And did you see Dennis Kucinich get canned last night in Ohio? A result of redistricting, yes, but Kucinich losing a Democratic primary? Are you kidding me? And his challenger will now be up against Joe the Plumber.

 

If Joe the Plumber ends up taking over Kucinich's seat, I'll crap purple Twinkies.

marci kaptur is almost as liberal (except abortion which i agree with her on). met her once...very impressive. will miss ole dennis...but he said today that you don't need to be a congressman to work for social justice and he's right. he's principled and has never waivered on issues...not something you can say about many candidates.

[John Adams]

People have (conveniently) short memories. It was no less contentious in 2008, and Hilly eventually withdrew from the race on June 7th. Romney should have the nom sewn up well before that date.

 

But in 2008 you had two candidates who were going to get 100% support from their base and they weren't gearing up to run against an incumbent. Plus, Obama diffused any issue by making it clear Hillary would play a role in his cabinet. That certainly won't happen for Santorum. Romney has enough sense not to put Santorum anywhere near the White House.

[GG]

Really? Do you see this as a trend that matters? The only people showing up to vote in the 2012 Dem primary are those voting for Lyndon Larouche. One thing you can be sure of: Obama has his base 100% locked in.

 

It's not whether the coverage should be on par with the GOP primaries, it' sthe fact that the Dem primary results are nowhere to be found on the political sites. It doesn't matter who shows up to vote. Just show the results and I'll be happy.

[Taro T]

I can't recall anyone ever covering the incumbent's primaries, myself.

They did back in '92 when Buchanan was challenging GHWB.

 

Also, in '76 and '80 when Reagan and Kennedy challenged the incumbents respectively.

 

But, going back to your point, I can't recall them covering an incumbent's primary without a non-marginalized challenger.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Taro T

[John Adams]

It's not whether the coverage should be on par with the GOP primaries, it' sthe fact that the Dem primary results are nowhere to be found on the political sites. It doesn't matter who shows up to vote. Just show the results and I'll be happy.

 

You are curious to see how the one issue anti-abortion candidate who ran against Obama in Oklahoma fared?

 

Doesn't sound like news to me. Only FOX, looking to stir controversy (Obama only got 57% support--he can barely control his own party!), is picking it up.

[Magox]

Really? Do you see this as a trend that matters? The only people showing up to vote in the 2012 Dem primary are those voting for Lyndon Larouche and other fringe kooks. One thing you can be sure of: Obama has his base 100% locked in.

Lets put it this way, for every little thing they look at Romney through the most high powered of microscopic lenses to point out his weaknesses, in the spirit of responsible, non-biased journalism you're damn straight they should of at LEAST mentioned it!! And I can tell you this JA, you said 100% is locked in?? Dude, I've got lots of hippy friends that I use to hang out with back in my days, and when I say lots I mean lots, that I'm still in contact with, specially now through FaceBook, and I can tell you that there have been lots of defections to Ron Paul and the kooks of the Green Party. They have move towards matters of causes such as Occupy, etc than political matters and there isn't this fawning over Obama like we saw in 2008, Obama does not have 100% of the base locked in, that I'm sure of.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Magox

[John Adams]

Lets put it this way, for every little thing they look at Romney through the most high powered of microscopic lenses to point out his weaknesses, in the spirit of responsible, non-biased journalism you're damn straight they should of at LEAST mentioned it!! And I can tell you this JA, you said 100% is locked in?? Dude, I've got lots of hippy friends that I use to hang out with back in my days that I'm still in contact with, specially now through FaceBook, and I can tell you that there have been lots of defections to Ron Paul and the kooks of the Green Party. There isn't this fawning over Obama like we saw in 2008, Obama does not have 100% of the base locked in.

 

I don't count the goofs at the fringes of the Dem party any more than I count the goofs at the fringes of the Reps.

 

Obama will have Dems show up in droves--something Romney will have to fight for.

[Doc]

But in 2008 you had two candidates who were going to get 100% support from their base and they weren't gearing up to run against an incumbent. Plus, Obama diffused any issue by making it clear Hillary would play a role in his cabinet. That certainly won't happen for Santorum. Romney has enough sense not to put Santorum anywhere near the White House.

Too early to tell. And maybe not Santorum, but possibly Paul. I mean, back in 2008 when they were going at it, did you think that Barry would make Hilly SoS? There were only discussions about it mid-November.

[GG]

You are curious to see how the one issue anti-abortion candidate who ran against Obama in Oklahoma fared?

 

Doesn't sound like news to me. Only FOX, looking to stir controversy (Obama only got 57% support--he can barely control his own party!), is picking it up.

 

A bit myopic aren't we? You don't think that a sitting President who's running unopposed and not locking up 90%+ of the primary voters is big news.

 

Isn't the fact that a conservative right to lifer got more votes in a Democratic primary deserve mention in news stories? I like, the majority of the population do not live in the bipolar world that you immediately jump to.

[Doc]

I don't count the goofs at the fringes of the Dem party any more than I count the goofs at the fringes of the Reps.

 

Obama will have Dems show up in droves--something Romney will have to fight for.

I think you'll find it's the other way around ("the enemy of my friend..."). And Barry doesn't have nearly the independent support he had last time around.

[Magox]

I don't count the goofs at the fringes of the Dem party any more than I count the goofs at the fringes of the Reps.

 

Obama will have Dems show up in droves--something Romney will have to fight for.

Yeah, well those goofs votes counts as much as yours. Having said that, the vast majority of them are from California, so... yeah, he'll win that in a landslide.

 

 

Back in 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/111115/democrats-election-enthusiasm-far-outweighs-republicans.aspx

 

Democrats had a 71% enthusiasm excitement polling

 

presently they have at 44% and even in a DailyKos poll that was conducted just a couple weeks ago its at 56% which we know wasn't conducted right.

 

Don't take this wrong way JA, but I truly believe that you are one of those folks that believes that the public mood is accurately portrayed through the mainstream outlets. That's not the case. There is no exact way to find these things out, but polling is one of the better ways from my view to attempt to guage these things. And if you look at the polling data from the best polling companies, it's not the way you happen to believe it is.

 

I strongly believe that things aren't quite how you perceive them to be.

[IDBillzFan]

Ohio Catholics break for Romney.

 

Wait. How can that be?

 

Link

 

According to CNN’s exit polls, Romney took 43% of Ohio Catholics on Super Tuesday, compared to 31% for Rick Santorum, and Romney beat Santorum overall by 38% to 37%.

 

Catholic voters accounted for a third of Ohio’s Republican electorate, the largest share of Catholics in any Super Tuesday state.

 

“The margin of Romney's win among Ohio Catholics is surprising, given Santorum's traditional Catholicism,” says John Green, a political science professor at the University of Ohio. “Romney's margin among Ohio Catholics - especially in the three largest metropolitan areas - may account for his close win in Ohio.”