Recapping the Weekend Primaries
Politics January 21st. 2008, 9:49am
Were you so enraptured with North Carolina and UCLA losing Saturday that you paid no attention to the political races that are heating up? Couple mild surprises over the weekend. Just 15 days until Super Tuesday. Political wonk Jon Schnaars has the goods for you.
Saturday was a bigger day for Republicans than it was for Democrats, but for some reason both parties seemed to revel in the process far less in this third round of primary voting. Perhaps the nation was a little less interested in following politics than in rejoicing in some good old fashioned college hoops mayhem. Or perhaps this is merely the calm before the larger storms that will be the Dems in SC and the GOP in Florida. Either way, let’s look at what we learned:
Republicans
The Results
Technically there were two Republican primaries on Saturday: the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina contest. In reality though, there was only one race that really mattered. Mitt Romney, as has been mentioned a few times by the talking heads, is a Mormon, and as such he had Nevada, where 1 in 5 voters was Mormon, on lock. He was essentially the only candidate that campaigned in the state, thus he dominated thoroughly. South Carolina was a much different story. John McCain and Mike Huckabee went into Saturday in a virtual dead heat. It was McCain, though who emerged the victor in the state that had crushed his presidential hopes eight years ago. He bested the former Southern governor by three points, with Fred Thompson and Romney rounding out the top four.
The Predictions
Stepping back, the only thing that anyone seems willing to say about the GOP race is that no one knows anything. Romney can lay claim to three nice victories, while McCain now has two under his belt. But as we all know from that marvelous disaster known as college football, some victories are better than others, and McCain who has won in the Northeast and now the heart of the South, and can rightly claim to be the front-runner. Losing South Carolina effectively ends Huckabee’s chances for the White House. He will continue to exert a strong force on the race, and could very well shake up the results in several coming states, including Florida. But if Huckabee can’t win in South Carolina, a state in his own backyard, then he’s not likely to win anything else. That means we’re down to three, or maybe more appropriately, two plus one. Rudy Giuliani again failed to beat even Ron Paul in South Carolina, and now it’s officially time for the rubber to meet the road for his campaign. Florida looms on the GOP’s horizon like a sublime beast, set to either establish a candidate or destroy him. Romney and McCain have the inside track, but as many have noted, the GOP is a deeply fractured party right now that is struggling to find its identity in a soon to be post-Bush world. Both of these candidates have flaws that concern the establishment. The true question going forward must be: what will it take to rally the GOP behind any one candidate in a way that puts a November victory in sight?
Democrats
The Results
Saturday capped off an exasperating and exhausting week of campaigning on the Democratic side of the race. A contest that had largely been civil and productive appeared to devolve into infighting and nastiness. Much of that came not necessarily from the candidates themselves, but instead from various places including within the campaigns themselves. With race suddenly becoming a central theme in the media coverage, and an economic situation that will clearly require some deft maneuvering, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were operating on all cylinders. In the end, Clinton emerged victorious in the contentious Nevada contest, but it was hardly a resounding proclamation, and thus things remain relatively uncertain.
The Predictions
As in the GOP race, the Democratic contest remains largely in flux. With her victory in Nevada, Clinton has more firmly cemented herself into the lead position. But Obama remains a formidable challenger, and could still easily see things swing back into his favor. In reality, both candidates leave Nevada with some scrapes and bumps, and things will not get easier anytime soon. Democrats in South Carolina will head to the polls next Saturday in a race that will tell us a great deal not only about the shape of this race, but also about the state of the party in the South. John Edwards will be the dark horse this week. Having been relegated to also-ran status after New Hampshire, Edwards will be very competitive in South Carolina, and while an outright win is unlikely, he will play an enormous roll in shaping the race for the two front-runners. It’s also unlikely that the race will leave South Carolina with any greater clarity. With Super Tuesday, and roughly 40% of the nations delegates, just around the corner, even another Clinton win—which would be three in a row for those keeping count—would not lower the boom on Obama. An Obama win on the other hand, would send a strong message that its safe for the party to buy into his message of hope, which some seem to have balked at in the last week. As you will no doubt hear more about in the coming week, the breakdowns will be very important in South Carolina, with women voters having flocked to Clinton in the last two contests. The black voters, who make up a very large part of the Democratic base in South Carolina, will have a chance to have their voice heard loud and clear next weekend. And it will be that voice, perhaps most of all, that determines who moves on to February 5th with the arms held high.
39 Responses to “Recapping the Weekend Primaries”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

January 21st, 2008 at 9:56 AM
It’s weird (but cool) to see officially political writing on this site. I’m predicting that when the dust has settled, it will be McCain and Obama winning the nominations. And much as a I take a conservative stance on many of the important election issues, I’m not sure I see McCain as a very electable candidate.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:08 AM
If McCain and Clinton win, I suspect that a lot of people (myself included) will have nobody they would even halfway consider voting for. It’s getting scary. And after scrolling this morning through the news channels, can I officially ask for a moratorium on the “They treat Barack Obama like he’s a rock star” references?
January 21st, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I am a moderate but lean conservatively on many things. I am not very impressed with the candidates. I would vote for McCain, but not for Guliani.
However, if Hillary get’s the Democratic nomination I would vote for anyone to try to keep her out. America needs to move on from the Clinton’s and Bush’s. If the same families have been in the White House for 19 out of my 24 years of living, something is wrong.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Someone keeps emailing in saying that if Clinton gets the Dem nod, Bloomberg would run as an independent just to try and take NY from her.
She’s probably the most polarizing major party candidate in the history of the country.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:19 AM
@cbh – That’s definitely on a lot of folks minds. It’s issues like that, that largely fall outside the realm of policy or campaigning, that are making this race so difficult to pin down.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:21 AM
im really hoping to not have to make the choice between clinton and repub candidate
i dont like HRC but then again i really dont like any of the republicans
January 21st, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I think Abraham Lincoln would beg to differ.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I wanted to try to bring in the Bloomberg contingency, but my feeling is that it’s still not going to happen. Certainly, if Clinton gets the nod, that’s one piece of the puzzle that Bloomberg will want to see. But for him to really be viable my feeling is that Huckabee or perhaps Thompson would have to come out of the GOP. That way Bloomberg can play the middle and steal votes on his right and his left. A third party candidate really needs to be able to establish themselves as a distinct third choice, and I don’t know that Bloomberg could do that this time around. The other issue, is that at this point Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. are all so well established that Bloomberg would be hard pressed to break into the national consciousness. Being in NYC though, it’s hard to get a read on what folks in the rest of the country think about our mayor.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Honestly, if Bloomberg ran as an independent just to screw Hillary, he’d be an even bigger douche bag than Ralph Nader. I don’t like Hillary either, but I can’t choose an Independent candidate just because I don’t like someone. The thought of having another Republican president for four years makes me nauseous, so I’ll take the lesser of two evils. There is NO WAY an Independent candidate can win the national election so why waste the votes? Nader fucked Gore over, Bloomberg would do the same to the Democratic nominee.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:34 AM
@ Schnaars – people in the rest of the country either don’t know Bloomberg or they don’t care about him. In most cases, it’s both.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Ron Paul beat McCain in Nevada…noteworthy. Second place overall in NV.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:43 AM
How can you talk politics without mentioning Ron Paul? He is the ONLY viable option to run this failing country.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:44 AM
That’s sort of what I figured, Sportsgal. As for Paul in Nevada, from what I’ve read, no one campaigned at all in Nevada. So yeah, it’s nice to come in second, but a third in SC would probably have been a bigger moment.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Listen, Ron Paul has good ideas but his level of crazy is off the charts. Plus he’s pro-life.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Pants – What, specifically, about Ron Paul makes him viable?
January 21st, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Why is nobody mentioning that Edwards maybe stealing this nomination process from Obama? They are similar candidates with Edwards taking some of votes in New Hampshire from Obama (setting up a Clinton victory). If Edwards was out of the race for the Nevada caucus, Obama would have finished only a few votes short (not a few hundred).
January 21st, 2008 at 11:06 AM
@ Iohur – That’s a very good point. In the early going Edwards was helping Obama, by doing a lot of the “dirty work” of attacking the Clinton team, and allowing Obama to stay above the fray, for the most part. But the downside to that effect is that Edwards is clearly taking votes away from Obama at this point. Some folks suggested in an earlier thread that Edwards was holding out for Obama to extend a VP offer before getting out of the race, but an Obama/Edwards ticket is highly unlikely, and as you point out, Edwards is hurting the chances of that the longer he stays in the race. In South Carolina, he’ll only be a bigger factor.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:08 AM
As a repub I don’t have a dog in the dem fight. But I cannot believe that people are not more aware of how Bill Clinton has pretty much in the last few weeks started running for an unelected 3rd term. Has anyone even heard from Hillary. I know there is a strategy there to keep her hands clean, but what he is doing to Obama is in my opinion beneath a former President. I don’t care for either Hillary or Obama, but if a dem is going to win I would much rather have Obama. Billary is without a doubt a package 2 for 1 deal. Finally, if the republicans run the dinosaur McCain against a young energetic Obama, they are toast.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Huckabee is from Arkansas – South Carolina isn’t his backyard, it’s 734 miles from Little Rock to Columbia.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Edwards is absolutely holding out for some kind of concession from Obama. He knows he can’t win, but he’s going to want a spot in the administration at the least.
As for the Obama/Edwards ticket, I realize that they’re really similar, but I still think it happens. I don’t know who else Obama would put in there as the VP. Hilary’s way too big to be a VP and I can’t think of anyone else that would make any difference at all during the campaign.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The VP question is tough at this stage because so little is settled, but my feeling is that Obama’s biggest downside is that he isn’t an established Washington entity (yes, I realize that’s part of his allure, but go with me here). In a general election (and to a certain extent in the primaries as well), that would be his weakness. He’s also a young, charismatic guy who has lofty ambitions. His complement then as a VP should be someone that fits into those places he doesn’t go: i.e. an elder statesmen type with a history of getting things done. I realize that this is vague, but my point is that Edwards is too similar, as you note, and also too ambitious. The VP needs to be someone who will serve the POTUS and his goals, not go out on his own limb and do his own thing. Clearly, the current administration might not bear that out, but I’m simply saying that that is what Obama would likely be looking for. Clinton, on the other hand, would need someone with completely different abilities. As would a McCain. Romney may be in a similar boat as Obama.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:20 AM
If after super Tuesday Obama and Hillary are only separated by a few thousand votes, I could easily see Edwards dropping out and saying, “Vote for Obama.” It’s a shame Edwards didn’t get the same media attention as H and O, he has some really great ideas and is the biggest supporter of anti-lobbyist legislation.
I’m a little annoyed Hillary is being presented as the nominee women are choosing… she might be getting women votes, but it’s only from women over the age of 55. NO ONE my age is voting for Hillary.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I’m with cbh on this. Enough of Bush/Clinton. Bloomberg is not well known outside NY but he does have $$$$. I don’t think he’ll be a serious threat, but I do think you’ll see someone swooping in late to limit the time anyone has to formulate an attack. Especially if things stay muddied in the two main parties.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I should say too, in response to BraveSr, that if we’ve learned anything from BO’s campaign, it’s that they are willing to try to shake up the “conventional wisdom,” so anything goes at this point on the VP front. That being said, I still think Edwards doesn’t get the role. Although, I could see him pulling something like you mention, SportsGal.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I agree with jgp that if McCain and Clinton get the nods I’m not really going to be left with an option I feel comfortable voting for. And the dems are kicking themselves in the balls (that includes Hillary) if they think fighting and sniping at each other is an intelligent form of discourse.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I waited in line two and a half hours to vote for George W. Bush in 2004. Would I do the same for faux Republicans John McCain or Mike Huckabee? No.
I’m holding out hope that the Rudy campaign comes to life with success in Florida and the Super Tuesday states, but it’s looking increasingly as though his campaign really shat the bed with their ill-advised strategy of ignoring all of the pre-Florida states. And, my #2 candidate, Fred Thompson, while acquitting himself quite well in the recent debates and on the talk show circuit is all but done. Mitt Romney at least gives the appearance of being a fiscal conservative, but there may be enough religious bigotry out there to deny him the nomination.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Thompson is my #1 but he has no shot, then Romney but it doesn’t appear he has a shot, so I’d be left with McCain.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:47 AM
412: What makes you like Bush more than Huckabee? Huckabee’s eerily similar on a lot of issues.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:26 PM
@ BraveSrRob – It was really a matter of being terrified of John Kerry as much as liking GWB. Huck’s only true conservative credentials are that he is, like me, pro-life. Otherwise, I believe he is just another RINO mouthing conservative talking points when his record as governor paints a picture of a politician who did very little in the way of advancing conservative principles.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Lots of work to do…so please don’t be offended if I remove myself from the discussion for the rest of the workday. I’ll check in tomorrow or later tonight.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:32 PM
@xv43 — was going to say the same thing. New York is closer to North Carolina than Arkansas is to South Carolina.
@pants — Ron Paul is no more viable than TBL is. He’s pulled one of the great con jobs in American political history by drawing in a cadre of supporters who don’t even understand who or what they are supporting…they just hear anti-war, and close their ears after that.
@sportsgal — you are mistaken about Hilary and the age thing. Just about every girl I know in their 20s is a Hilary supporter, including my girlfriend, her friends, and her sisters. She has a massively young voter base in Philadelphia.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Something that really bugs me: I live in Florida (one of the states that moved up its primary and has been penalized) and we will see no campaigning by democrats. The Republicans only penalized half the delegates so their candidates still see these states as important. But since there are no delegates for demos, they won’t come (and I’m sure republicans would have skipped us too if they’d taken all delegates away). Question: if candidates can’t stand up to their own party how will they stand up to foreign governments (or anyone, for that matter)?
January 21st, 2008 at 1:26 PM
@ Jay V and xv43 – You’re correct, SC is some distance away from AK, but the fact remains that ideologically, it is closer to AK than it is to say NH or MI. See: Huckabee’s stumping about the Confederate flag, which was modestly well received in the moment, but played horribly in places like NY. To say that NY is closer to NC than AK is to SC is technically true, but is a little disingenuous.
@ Jax – This has definitely been an under appreciated issue during the primaries, but it’s the nature of the beast, I fear, with a two party system. In response to your question, I would simply say that I don’t think a candidate’s willingness or unwillingness to “stand up to their own party” tells us anything about how they will conduct foreign policy.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:56 PM
@Jay V – must be a Pennsylvania thing because every girl I know in my area (Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio) hates Hillary. My cousin in North Carolina says her Democratic friends feel the same way. We’re all in our late 20’s.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Oh the horror.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Yes, Presidents that are pro-life are a total horror.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I have my feelings about pro life and pro choice but learned long ago that nothing good can come from discussing it.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:20 PM
The412 taking a break from a semi-productive afternoon chimes in:
I worked the polls for a local candidate this past general election. Yeah, I was one of the annoying people handing out flyers and asking you to “please consider Candidate X”. Anyway… One of my fellow poll workers that day was there handing out a flyer that purported to list the pro-life candidates. Personally, I didn’t think it was so relevant that day, as the offices in that election had zero influence on that issue, but I support that person’s right to be there nonetheless. What I thought was funny (funny in a pathetic way) was that there were a couple people who refused to take the pamphlets from the pro-life people saying “I’m not pro-life”. Not pro-life? WTF?
(sigh)
cbh49er…I do agree that it is best not to get into such things on internet blogs/message boards as people get a bit overly-sensitive and no substantive discussion results.
Okay…back to work!
January 21st, 2008 at 5:43 PM
@Schnaars: Ya, I agree the geography comparison was a bit disingenuous, but not totally. SC is a very mainstream Republican state; the Arky Ozark hillbillies are more willing to support a maverick-type.
@Sportsgal: The polls don’t back you up. Hill has an advantage in the 18-34 females nationally in the poll released today.