Today is Super Tuesday, where almost half of the delegates of both parties are up for grabs. But who will win? Can Hillary stop the Obama Man Train? Will Ann Coulter’s anti-endorsement actually hurt John McCain? Courtesy of our patented Angry Crystal Ball technology, the 12 Angry Men offer their predictions of who’s going to come out on top.
If we get off our angry behinds, we might actually update this during the day. Or not.
Angry New Mexican
On the Republican side of the aisle, I expect to see some fairly solid support for McCain in most of the bluer states — New York, California and New Jersey, for instance. Romney picks up most of the redder states, discounting a Huckabee victory in Arkansas, plus perhaps a surprise in Missouri, Alabama or Tennessee. Overall, I see McCain picking up a (slim) majority of the 1,081 Republican delegates chosen on Super Tuesday. This will probably be enough to off Huckabee for good, but not enough to quash Romney. Ron Paul will get no delegates, which will of course, providing tin-foil hat whining from his partisans on slashdot.
On the Democratic side of things, expect to see Hillary take a majority in all of the big states save Illinois and Georgia. Obama does very well in the smaller, more liberal states like Connecticut. States with large Hispanic populations (New Mexico, Arizona) go heavily for Hillary. Overall, Hillary comes out on top by about 5% or so in the polls and a tighter margin among the 2,075 Democratic delegates. Obama will be able to keep up his campaign for a bit longer, perhaps even until the convention.
Angry Overeducated Catholic
On the Republican side, I agree with ANM in general terms, but with some important caveats. California remains too close to call, with McCain and Romney trading the top spot constantly. I’m going to call it for McCain but I would not be surprised at all to see Romney take it (esp. with the immigration issue looming large). New York, of course, is a no brainer: on it’s most conservative day it’s slightly to the left of Castro—so McCain there for sure. Jersey, ditto, it’s New York with more mobsters and toxic waste dumps. And Illinois, which might still be glancing nervously towards Nauvoo. Romney, meanwhile, carries his own state of Taxacusettes, Utah (duh), Nevada (still duh), and some of the other western states. But he loses the South to McCain(!) and maybe Huckabee in one or two places. I just don’t see Romney able to overcome both Huckabee and his open Mormonism to take the more conservative voters in the South. Overall, I think there’s a real solid possibility that Super Tuesday to cement McCain as the clear choice, put the final nail in Huckabee’s coffin, and persuade Romney to bow out as well for the sake of party unity. Ron Paul, of course, will soldier on, no matter what, as will his followers, but who cares.
The Democratic side strikes me as even more interesting. Despite ANM’s clear Billary boosterism, Obama is a real contender in Califronia, as well as in Illinois and Georgia. None of those are winner-take-all states, though, and Hillary has a lot of support across New England and through the Mid-Atlantic states. Obama may take several states in the Midwest and Deep South, but it’s by no means certain. My gut tells me that there won’t be a clear leader after Super Tuesday, but Obama will be in trouble if he doesn’t come out with either a majority or a close minority of the votes. Given the number of superdelegates leaning towards Hillary in the Democrat’s corrupt nominating system, Obama has an uphill fight unless he can show clear momentum today. Still, unlike the GOP side, I see little chance for a decided race tomorrow, which will doubtless make Hillary even more shrill and uncompromising towards “uppity” Obama. Worse, the Clintons will be smelling blood and enraged by Barack’s lack of meek obedience: so look for the last remnants of restraint to fade after today, as the Clinton smear machine shows Barack what a dirty campaign really looks like.
Angry Political Optimist
Frankly, I am sick of the political coverage of this dragged out election season. It even makes the Brittany Spears/Natalie Holloway/Paris Hilton celebrity coverage look attractive. Gag! (I can’t believe I said that.) I suspect that there are a lot of people who feel like me and will express their displeasure at the voting booth by voting for Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse. Expect to see an uptick in low percentage candidates.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
February 5, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Oh, and let me just add, if anything, Ann Coulter’s rant provides a huge boost for McCain. Even among conservatives, does anyone actually like or respect Coulter? Find her amusing, sure. Enjoy her vicious attacks on liberals, well, yeah. But take her advice seriously? All she really did is give McCain useful humor material for the rest of the campaign…
February 5, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ditto on Coulter, AOC. The folks who would heed her aren’t voting for McCain anyway. As for my Billary boosterism, it’s all to counteract the Obamania from a few other select bloggers:) And yeah, the Billary folks are going to get even nastier to Obama. After all, Hillary’s negatives won’t get much higher… Obama’s still have a long way to left to go:)
Your thoughts on Romney bowing out “for party unity” are interesting. I agree — if McCain has a solid lead, Romney will likely fall on his sword.
February 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I am waiting with baited breath, crossed-fingers, and a couple of Hail Marys for The Archangel Michael Bloomberg to announce his campaign as an Independent after all this Super Tuesday foo-der-rol is over.
February 5, 2008 at 5:41 pm
ANM wrote:
As for my Billary boosterism, it’s all to counteract the Obamania from a few other select bloggers:)
I won’t speak for anyone else (aka the suspiciously silent of late AM), but my support for Obama is probably somewhat cockeyed. I don’t think he’s the savior because I don’t believe that any politician is, but I am REALLY bothered by the notion of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton,…. GWB, son of GHWB, was bad enough but husband and wife? That’s just a bridge too far for me. This is the USofA not a damned banana republic.
To quote a staunch Democrat friend of mine who was an Edwards supporter (I’ve pushed R a few too many times to be considered a ‘staunch Democrat’), “Bill Clinton’s behavior of late has reminded me of all the stuff I really didn’t like about the Clintons—the parsing words, the sleaze, etc.—back in the 90s. If Hillary Clinton’s the nominee in the fall, I’m going to undervote her.”
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t support him if I didn’t think he had positive qualities, but the negatives of the others are factoring in my decision.
February 5, 2008 at 6:10 pm
am REALLY bothered by the notion of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton,…
I was going to complain that the faults of Bush are undermining Hillary unfairly, but if I’m really honest with myself, I’m holding similar Bush problems against Obama. After all, the last light-on-the-details, big picture, “uniter not divider” president with a flare for relating to people was in fact W. himself. Sorry, Obama, but we’ve already been fooled once.
February 5, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I see flaws of GWB in her, in particular a “my way or the highway” style that seems to rear its head at times. David Brooks’ column today has a nice story from the early days of the first Clinton term.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion
However one cuts it, we always end up comparing candidates to the past.
February 6, 2008 at 10:42 am
I confess I’ve never seen the appeal of Hillary. It would be like all the bad aspects of the Clinton years, but with the addition of a large dollop of fascist coercion, character assassination, and abuse of executive power to silence opponents.
I mean, I understand many Dems pine for simpler times of detente, but do they really want to play as the Soviet Union this time around?
February 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm
AOC wrote:
I confess I’ve never seen the appeal of Hillary.
The best description I heard of her—I can’t recall where—was “Bob Dole in a skirt.” As a senator she’s been reasonably successful but I think that the presidency would be her Peter Principle stopping point. Ted Kennedy might be a good analogy: Once he figured out that he wasn’t going to become president (in about 1980), he buckled down, got to work and, indeed, has been fairly successful as a cross the aisle deal maker. Of course, one could argue that the presidency is essentially ANYONE’s Peter Principle.
As I said, my big reason for an anti-Hillary stance has to do “Clinton fatigue” and a deep, deep skepticism of dynasty politics. Related to that, I GREATLY worry about the whole “co-presidency” thing. Dick “Fudd” Cheney shows exactly what THAT meant. At least he was elected. Bill coming back as an unelected power behind the throne…. Ugh.
February 6, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Of course, one could argue that the presidency is essentially ANYONE’s Peter Principle.
I’d agree that it’s the stopping point, but some presidents appear to be reasonably competent at the job. Others show a more classic Peter point of being a useless POTUS when they were a really good whatever-they-just-were (usually, a campaigner).
February 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm
AI wrote:
I’d agree that it’s the stopping point, but some presidents appear to be reasonably competent at the job. Others show a more classic Peter point of being a useless POTUS when they were a really good whatever-they-just-were (usually, a campaigner).
True enough. Unfortunately, there’s very little way to tell whether a good campaigner will be a good president, or not, etc. Of course, one of the reasons for incumbency advantage is that voters have had a chance to see. But this election is a weird one because it’s a double open seat. That hasn’t happened for a LONG time.
Another brick for the “HRC = Bob Dole in a skirt” analogy: The whole “she’s owed it” argument.
February 12, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Another GWB-esque trait:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
The short version: An inability to discipline erring staff members who have been long-time family loyalists.