Lessons From Michigan….
The first headline (to me) from Michigan is this: The GOP Nomination Is Reset and Up For Grabs!
Fred Thompson’s campaign agrees!
First, the Republican campaign for President remains wide-open. Our party faithful are still looking for someone who meets all the qualifications they seek: A true consistent conservative with the experience to keep the country safe. Second, Mike Huckabee’s campaign to be John McCain’s Vice President has hit a snag. He has gone from the mid-thirties in Iowa to 11% in New Hampshire and now about 15% in Michigan.
Second: The Michigan results show that John McCain Is Severely Wounded.
Independent voters constituted a significantly smaller proportion of Michigan Republican primary voters this cycle than eight years ago, our exit polling indicates.
Independents made up only 25 percent of primary voters this year — 10 points less than they did in the 2000 GOP primary that McCain won.
As predicted, among independents McCain beat Romney 35 percent to 29 percent. But Romney easily beat McCain among registered Republicans, 40 percent to 26 percent. That could bode well for the former Massachusetts governor in upcoming primaries where independent voters are not allowed to vote on the Republican side.
Third: Romney Has Received Many More Votes & Delegates So Far. (source: CNN 2008 Election Central webpages)
GOP Delegates (1,191 needed for nomination):
- Romney: 52
- Huckabee: 22
- McCain: 15
- Thompson: 6
- Paul: 2
- Giuliani: 1
- Hunter: 1
GOP 2008 Total Primary Votes (IA, NH, WY, MI combined)
- Romney: 443,139
- McCain: 361,546
- Huckabee: 207,308
- Ron Paul: 84,554
- Fred Thompson: 50,925
- Rudy Giuliani: 49,198
- Duncan Hunter: 4,567
Finally, in EVERY Democrat caucus & primary vote so far in 2008 the result has been this: A Majority of Democrats Vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton.
Chew on all of that this Wednesday….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from Dan): Over at RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost offers a good analysis of the Michigan results. He also notes the bad news there for Ms. Hillary despite her overall victory over Uncommitted:
As for the Democratic side – the big story is Hillary Clinton losing the African American vote to “uncommitted.” The exit poll pegged African Americans going against Clinton, 68% to 30%. It appears that opposition by African Americans induced a split in Wayne County (where Detroit is), 50% to Hillary, 45% to uncommitted. People in the media are going to connect these results to the racial kerfuffle of the last few days – and they are partially right to do so. But I think there is more to it than this. Since his Iowa victory, Obama’s numbers among African American voters have been trending upward. Tonight’s results are another indication that African Americans are breaking his way. The Clinton campaign should be worried about this. It appears as if Obama might be able to take an important part of the traditional Democratic coalition. He is thus moving beyond the relatively narrow appeal of previous “insurgent” Democratic candidates like Bill Bradley and Gary Hart. This is bad news for Clinton.
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Shellac Romney, the Huckster, or the dithering Democrat McCain? We’re screwed.
Comment by Crow — January 16, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - January 16, 2008
The important (good) thing is, McCain has been wounded, so the Republican race is still open.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2008 @ 2:06 pm - January 16, 2008
Oh, and the Huckster’s 15 minutes are further fading.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - January 16, 2008
The South Carolina winner will need about 30 – 35%.
Thompson is polling 10-15%. He needs 20 points in 4 days. from where?
So Rudy and Fred loose again. Romney is a man at a poker table who can play up all night, but it’s clear he lacks vision and message.
Rudy needs to take chances on rhetoric in speeches and debates.
He has ONE week to project a BIG vision for America or Romney will
grind away with his 25-30%, and ability to spend any amount, anywhere.
Comment by Geena the Transgirl — January 16, 2008 @ 2:53 pm - January 16, 2008
#4
They all need to nail McCain’s ass to the wall.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 16, 2008 @ 3:15 pm - January 16, 2008
If Bloomberg gets in, can Sself anointed Saint Bill O’Reilly be far behind?
Comment by heliotrope — January 18, 2008 @ 8:02 pm - January 18, 2008
Wouldn’t it be amazing to have the conventions actually mean something this year? Yeah in both parties. I’ve been whining about all this front loading and everything being decided by Feb 5th. Now it looks like it all might take a while. God forbid that we get some time to compare all these folks. Who says 4 contests in, we have to decide between Huck and Mac? Neither of whom had or has any money. I thought the media said all along….well Thompson can’t win he doesn’t have enough cash. Now the two guys with the least amount of money are going to win? Hogwash. Media bs. I’d like to see 3 guys around a table for 2 hours, Mitt, Mac and Fred. John McCain would get eaten alive. I remember why I started to dislike McCain early in Bush 43′s Presidency. He was against the tax cuts. He called em tax cuts for the rich. He was courted as a VP candidate by Kerry. And after months of speculation turned him down. John made it acceptable to rip into the Sec Def during war time. Leftists for years said Democrat criticism was justified because “after all Republican McCain even agrees with the Dems.” I think McCain was a war hero. But this is politics. And I for one didn’t forget his disloyalty to his party and his President.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 18, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - January 18, 2008
Plus McCain was the leader of the gang of 14. We would have dismissed this new crap about any judge needing 60 Senate votes to get confirmed. But, no, Senator McCain had to kick the can down the road and show how he still had some clout. Now there is no question that a weakened President has to have a super majority to get a conservative judge approved to any court, not just the Supremes. I didn’t forget.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 18, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - January 18, 2008
I think McCain’s position on this looks pretty shrewd in hindsight. Had the Republicans changed the rules and eliminated filibusters on judicial nominations, sure, the Republicans could have packed the courts with conservatives. However, it would’ve been short lived, since the Democrats wrested control of the Senate a short time later. With the rules changed, the Dems would now be just a presidential victory away from packing the courts themselves, except with liberals. So McCain’s foresight preserved some leverage for the Republicans, should November not go as planed for the GOP.
Comment by Chase — January 19, 2008 @ 1:29 am - January 19, 2008
I supported the rule change. If the President’s party also happened to have a Senate majority then they should be allowed to pack the court.. This includes if the Democrats happened to be that party.
The People, after all, did elected both the President and the Senators, and they deserve to have their wishes implemented in the system.
Our system was designed to achieve as less as possible as it is. I dont think subjecting nominees to fillibuster is fair.
It hasnt ben done historially.. it’s a new tactic, and it’s a very dirty one. Tinkering with the nomination process can be what forces some very nasty structureal breech in our system of govt and it should be stopped.
Comment by Vince P — January 19, 2008 @ 5:03 am - January 19, 2008
The cloture threshold for judicial nominations only began in the G.W. Bush presidency. Trent Lott threatened the “nuclear option” which would follow a 1957 parliamentary ruling which would allow the majority leader to end a filibuster by a simple majority. This ruling has been used even though it is counter to the Senate’s official rule on cloture.
The “gang of 14″ formed to oppose the nuclear option, thus effectively keeping the cloture rule in tact.
The point remains that the Democrats have created the 60 vote rule on judicial nominations and unless they manage to get a stunning majority, they will have to live with their “improved” version of “advice and consent” if they win the Whitehouse.
Here are the definitions of the rules taken from the Senate site:
advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
Comment by heliotrope — January 19, 2008 @ 10:34 am - January 19, 2008
#10 Vince P is correct. We are talking about the Constitution here. I don’t want the Republicans to filibuster any Democrat nominees either. A President gets elected and has the right to appoint people of his or her political bent. Conservatives for the most part play by the rules. Even if they are 220 years old. McCain and his gang of 14, didn’t amend the Constitution, they just twisted it out of shape.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 19, 2008 @ 9:18 pm - January 19, 2008
You guys still want the Senate to be able to confirm justices with a simple majority, even after the Democrats have taken over the chamber?
I hear nary a mention of what McCain’s so-called “Gang of 14″ ultimately achieved — the elevation of two great conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
Comment by Justin Wong — January 20, 2008 @ 9:03 am - January 20, 2008
Yes we do.. that’s what the Constitution says. If the Democrats want to violate the Constitution (and they always do) let them (well actually fight it.. which is what the nuclear option would have done).
It’s not a reason for Republicans to do it.
Comment by Vince P — January 20, 2008 @ 10:18 am - January 20, 2008
The same applies to “finding” a right to privacy or a “right” to an abortion in the Constitution. They don’t exist. You won’t find it. We believe if you want to legislate those things, do it. Get the support of the people and pass a law. Don’t ask a judge or justices to invent them out of whole cloth. Liberals just shrug their shoulders. We actually believe what the documents say.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 20, 2008 @ 7:45 pm - January 20, 2008