Streams

National Analysis

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Liz Halloran, senior writer for U.S. News and World Report, Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst at Time Magazine, and Andrea Bernstein, WNYC political director, look at Super Tuesday's results.

Guests:

Andrea Bernstein, Liz Halloran and Mark Halperin

Comments [71]

Larry Conroy from New York, NY.

I emigrated to the United States in 1948. I became a citizen and during the process, studied American History and systems. I am STILL completely confused as to the political "democratic" voting system. I can only come to the conclusion that at some point Rube Goldberg was given full range when Washington said, go ahead -- design us something. "One Vote One Man" = Democracy? Okay, then with the voting machine debacles, super Tuesdays, billion dollar primary syatems -- that makes me wonder who that one man is? Let all people vote and that's that. That, to me is Democracy.

Feb. 07 2008 10:32 AM
roses from nyc

Although I am an Obama supporter, I couldn't resist listening to Rush(don't ask Rush who) today. After hearing about all of his anti-McCain tirades leading up to yesterday's primaries,I couldn't wait to hear him spew this afternoon. Now, that's entertainment. Let's just say that if McCain wins any more primaries, WABC better have paramedics waiting outside his studio.

What did stun me was one caller who said she was tired of hearing about McCain's war heroics. After all, that was 40 years ago, we need to move on.
And that got me thinking. Would the Republicans "swiftboat" McCain? Maybe run a commericial that he wasn't really a POW all those years. That the Hanoi Hilton was really a hotel? Just a thought.

Feb. 06 2008 09:50 PM
Jeff from ny

Read Paul Krugman, NYTimes

".....But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen"

Feb. 06 2008 01:54 PM
AWM from UWS

So Jeff, you have a problem with people playing the race card? Hmmmmm...

Could you please read EVERYTHING you have posted today and think about that?

Feb. 06 2008 01:19 PM
Jeff from ny

By the way, I do apologize for expressing my views. I should remember my place!

Feb. 06 2008 01:17 PM
Jen from NJ

I was told I could not vote last night as an Independent. But then convinced
them that NJ is an Open State and that Independents can indeed vote. They
finally allowed me to vote after realizing "Oh you are UN-affiliated". Many
"un-affiliated" voters call themselves independents and due to semantics some
voters, perhaps many voters, were turned away. I spoke to two officials in the
county seat who also were initially confused. This may be a state wide problem that could negatively effect Obama, as many independents have chosen him.
IT should be checked out.

Feb. 06 2008 12:59 PM
AWM from UWS

Hey Jeff,

Keep on posting, with every word you prove my initial point.

As for latinos, you are also proving that you’ll vote against the black man because it bothers you that a black man is the first “minority” to get this far in politics.
Your bitterness is palpable.

By the way, Jeff, if it weren’t for black people standing up and taking a relentless beating in order to insure the rights of all people of color in this country, you wouldn’t have to “become acculturated into the american society (whatever that means).” You probably wouldn’t even be here and if you were you probably wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Feb. 06 2008 12:48 PM
Jeff from ny

to 65
no need to correct
everyone makes errors while typing quickly. may be AWM (another white man) will think that you are dumb! but we know where this person is coming from!

Feb. 06 2008 12:05 PM
anna

Correction:
Does every Latino have Obama's (well, English is my 7th language)

Feb. 06 2008 11:59 AM
Jeff from ny

We latinos recognize that in order to get something accomplished we need to be allied with someone from the establishment that can creat alliances and compromises with other groups. We are for law and order, working hard, learning English and becoming acculturated into the american society. We are also oppossed to illegal imigration but feel offended to the rhetoric coming from some groups that sound more anti-hispanic than an effort to resolve this issue. Clinton and Mc Cain are two people that will have real power and we can compromise with. Obama, if elected, will be paralized by the very powerful forces in government. He will be a figure head. Real power will continue to rest in the representatives of each congresional district that in the end, is not in their interest to follow Obama

Feb. 06 2008 11:58 AM
anna

This is ridiculous. Obama's supporters are mostly "trickle down"s who invaded the Democratic party together with their reaganomics. Now, we really have one party (the Republican party is dead).
Study history, children.
#50.
Why is Obama natural to the Latino issues?
Does every Latino has Obama's privileged background - e.g. father with a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard?

Feb. 06 2008 11:46 AM
Jeff from ny

Read: "The Race card" by Richard Thompson Ford (a black writer"

Feb. 06 2008 11:43 AM
Joan Rubenstein from somers, ny

Did anyone canvassed in the exit polls yesterday mention the cadidate's stance on bringing home the troops in Iraq as a reason for voting for him or her?

Feb. 06 2008 11:40 AM
Stephanie from Atlanta, Georgia

The following website, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/super-tuesday-delegate-tracker.html has a running tally of the delegates won in yesterday's vote. Many states have not completed the delegate assignment.

Feb. 06 2008 11:22 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

After listening to NPR / WNYC's coverage last night, I'm really impressed with Andrea Bernstein's perceptive, level headed and generally outstanding analysis. She's really one of the best.

Feb. 06 2008 11:06 AM
slowereastside from manhattan

"I heard the comment about Obama winning mostly in red states. Could this be a problem in the general election, where he would not win most of those states?"

That's a sign of strength, not weakness. Those blue states that Obama lost, were lost by a very narrow margin -including NY (if anything, that's not a great sign for Hillary).

As for Obama's clear red state victories, that's a sign that those states will be crucial battlefields during the general election rather than Republican landslides. All in all, it's further proof that Obama really does have cross-over appeal. And going forward, that's what the remainder of the Dem. primaries should be about -convincing the 'other side'- since it's already clear that the Dem. base is highly motivated.

Feb. 06 2008 10:55 AM
Talia from New Jersey

Chris #45

Thanks. I'll check out Obama's site. I have no problem with him talking to Iran's Ahmadinejad if he could get positive results! Diplomacy is pragmatic not legitimizing as far as I'm concerned.

Feb. 06 2008 10:55 AM
Roger from Bronx

To #41, yours is an example of why we have sampling & statistics. The polls did not say all upper tax & well educated people voted for Obama, but rather that he won that demographic i.e. he got the majority or had there been more than two it would have been a plurality.
An interesting aside is the breakdown of white voters for Obama in states where there is no substantial black or other population of color vs in states where there is a sizable black/color population and what are the dynamics driving this.

Feb. 06 2008 10:55 AM
jackson from brooklyn

The media has given prez clinton a rough time for painting obama a "black candidate" it seems to me that the whole premise of polling places obama into a "black box" As I watched the returns last nite, pollsters contiously pointed out how black a state's constituency is and related it to obama's success or not - as oprah said, "don't play me that small" voters have proved across the country that obama has mass appeal, and I'm exhausted with pollsters who attached a states black population to his success.

Feb. 06 2008 10:54 AM
BenRoberts from Sandy Hook, CT

For Brook:

I thought it was silly to see the TV news anchors frequently reading off very early raw vote totals as if they were meaningful.

Your thoughts?

Feb. 06 2008 10:54 AM
Jeff from ny

What is Obama tto hispanics? Where is the beef?. Clinton is someone we can count on. Obama will have to worry about delivering for his people. Nothing in what he or his wife says(even worst), can connect with hispanics. I am telling you, many hispanic feel this way. What about Oprah, she is voting for Obama because he is "brilliant" this is the Oprah, that race the race card, when in Europe she wanted a store to open their doors after they were closing. Oprah, is another fake, a beneficiary of the "6 degrees of separation " crowd. She ows a lot to this white group.
Too bad that this other black guy --FORD -- is not running. He seems to be a real candidate that could unite everyone.

Feb. 06 2008 10:53 AM
jsu from bronx

Jeff, you are CRAZY. Once Latinos get to know Obama, he is a natural to Latino issues and sensibilities. No matter what part of Latino (mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and the many others) you are taking about.

Feb. 06 2008 10:42 AM
BenRoberts from Sandy Hook, CT

Doesn't Obama's surge over the past week but lack of continued momentum in tha last days suggest that the main dynamic to Obama's move was that he got most of the Edwards voters?

Feb. 06 2008 10:41 AM
Matt Opatrny from Hell's Kitchen

I think I may have messed up and voted for more than six delegates in the Obama column. Does that mean my vote is thrown out?

Feb. 06 2008 10:40 AM
Charlene from Brooklyn

I heard the comment about Obama winning mostly in red states. Could this be a problem in the general election, where he would not win most of those states?

Feb. 06 2008 10:40 AM
Matt Opatrny from Hell's Kitchen

What is the overall Democratic popular vote count to this point? If Obama wins the overall popular vote and Hillary gets the nomination with the superdelagates, I'd be glad to lead the revolution! That would be even worse than Bush stealing the election in 2000!

Feb. 06 2008 10:38 AM
Erin from Manhattan

Why can't independents vote in New York Democratic primaries, when they can in most other states?

Feb. 06 2008 10:38 AM
Chris O from New York

Talia #14
Obama's views on Israel mirror those of all the mainstream candidates, from McCain to Clinton to Biden to Richardson. However, he has held out a fig leaf to Iran and spoke of his willingness to engage them in dialogue. This is different than the other candidates and may be the reason why the right-wing Jews are engaged in a slander against him. This is done via email b/c it can not stand up to reality or the light of day so that is a surreptitious way to spread mis-info.

Go to Barack's website - go to issues - go to foreign policy - and go to the section on Israel. It is all spelled out.

Feb. 06 2008 10:37 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

Is it more important to vote for delegates or the canidate? I wanted to vote for Biden as the canidate with Obama's deligates, but voted for Obama. Would it have mattered either way?

Feb. 06 2008 10:36 AM
Jeff from ny

NYT'S EDITORIAL:
"...MR. OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN OFTEN SEEMS TO TEETER ON BECOMING A CULT OF PERSONALITY....MR OBAMA'S WIFE....WAS ASKED IF SHE WOULD WORK TO SUPPORT MRS CLINTON IF SHE WON, "IWOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT", SHE REPLIED....."
Obama's wife is toxic!!. She has played the race card before any of the Clintons did. LAST NIGHT HISPANICS SPOKE - WE WILL SUPPORT HILLARY BUT NOT OBAMA. IF HE WINS THE NOMINATION THEN WE CAN MOVE TO MC CAIN"

Feb. 06 2008 10:36 AM
Dale from Amityville,NY

The gender of the delegates also matters b/c each congressional district has to have a certain gender distribution, right?

Feb. 06 2008 10:36 AM
BB Wylie Walden from Westchester County

Today's NY Times editorial and now here on my beloved WNYC - I find the constant litany that "the elite" or well educated voted for Obama while the lower classes, working classes and uneducated voted for Clinton to be so tiresome. Talk about the media adding fuel to the fires of a "divided" country - oy vey!

I'm well educated and my tax returns will show that I'm in the upper tax brackets and, yes, I (and others I know who fall into these categories) voted for Hillary Clinton. I could easily have voted for Barak Obama but chose not to - this time. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I'll be thrilled and support him - just as I will should Clinton win.

Please - let's stop with the broad and glittering generalities about why people voted for who they did.

I also hope that both of the Democratic candidates and both of their spouses will get with it and be wise to the fact that they need to remain diplomatic and be ready to support the winning Democratic nominee, while working together for a solid platform that will attract voters.

Feb. 06 2008 10:36 AM
LIzzy from Brooklyn

My Aunt had an Obama sticker on her car, but she voted for Clinton once she got into the booth. I had almost the reverse experience, but voted for Obama last minute. I was truly undecided until the last minute.

Also, what about McCain's age? Will that be an issue?

Feb. 06 2008 10:35 AM
Leonore from Stuyvesant Town

I was interested to hear Mark say that "we" want voters to vote color and gender blind. IF SO, why is all the analysis by gender and race?? The analyses themselves reinforce identity politics and identity thinking.

Feb. 06 2008 10:34 AM
Laurie Price from Brooklyn, NY

Many media outlets often break out Democratic poll results by race, gender, income, age, etc. I rarely see these broken out on the Republican side...I am just missing it or is this done less and if so, any idea about reasons why?

Feb. 06 2008 10:34 AM
JoAnne Lindsley from Montclair, NJ

Curious about the turn out for super Tuesday. Earlier contests had record turnout - do you know what happened yesterday?

Feb. 06 2008 10:33 AM
Nancy Young from NJ

What happened to the Oprah Factor? Any evidence her support made a difference?

Feb. 06 2008 10:33 AM
Rhonda Himes from Hillsdale, NJ

What about the Jewish vote? Is Obama having a problem there?

Feb. 06 2008 10:32 AM
Chris O from New York

The other thing about Red State Democrats: they probably have Clinton fatigue with all the Clinton hatred in their states. I don't think this is fair, it is not the Clinton's fault, it is the hater's. But I think they more than others really want to move beyond the battles of the past.

Feb. 06 2008 10:32 AM
Alie from Manhattan

Hi Brian,

I'm confused about the Delegate count. The New York Times says the Mrs. Clinton won 584 delegates in Tuesday’s vote, bringing her total to 845, and Mr. Obama won 569 delegates for a total of 765. A candidate needs 2,025 votes to win the nomination.

Is it possible for them both to win that amount? How many delegates are there in total? Please explain

Also, why do you think that Hillary won such a strong Latino vote? In the last debate Obama was the one who said that immigrants were not taking away from jobs and that they deserve driver's licenses’, while Clinton said no the Driver's license and also agreed with the email that immigrants were taking jobs. I don’t understand why Obama would not have a stronger Latino vote.

Feb. 06 2008 10:30 AM
Jade from NJ

1) If you allow FL and MI to vote LAST, that will defeat the purpose! It will reward those states by giving them *more* power. Trust me, this will not happen.

2) Obama and Israel: There's cause for concern, I know that much. I don't recall what the issue is because it really won't change the minds of the people I engage in political chat.

Feb. 06 2008 10:30 AM
ismael from nyc

Brian:

Do you think that Obama is the more "change" candidate where Clinton positions are more big government, more socialististic?

merci.

Feb. 06 2008 10:30 AM
hjs from 11211

Superdelegate defined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Feb. 06 2008 10:27 AM
Chris from Brooklyn

I see Clinton's big victories last night (i.e., CA, NY, MA) as a perfect formula for another 49% of the electorate in the General Election. These states will almost certainly vote Democratic in the Generals. But they won't win the election. Despite the Red State/Blue State brouhaha in 2004, the real story since has been the Purple States--those that voted for Bush in 2004 (or barely for Kerry) and have been trending Democratic ever since (I'm talking to you, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota). With the exception of Missouri, all these states have given Obama a decisive victory.

Feb. 06 2008 10:27 AM
Lisa from York, PA

After polling friends in family in New York yesterday, they all drew the same conclusion regardless of party. That there is no attractive candidate, and most made their decision as they walked into the booth.

Feb. 06 2008 10:27 AM
jsu from bronx

Stop with the racial divide talk. It is not a racial divide but a reaction from the Black community first against (repudiation of) what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina with his race baiting. Second it is a realization that America is ready for Obama and they are taking advantage of the opportunity of exercising their vote. Plus, Obama won white women and many white men. And the Latino vote just needs to be courted by Obama. If he penetrates this Obama will explode forward.

Feb. 06 2008 10:26 AM
ilana from Cobble Hill, Brooklyn

What about the gays? I know Barack got a lot of money from the gay community, but I've been very surprised lately at the number of Clinton-supporting gays I've come across.

Who really has gay love in the democratic nomination?

Feb. 06 2008 10:26 AM
hjs from 11211

but in November the states that voted for obama will not vote for the democrat (if history is an indicator.) I think republicans are playing a trick on the dems. if obama can't motivate dems in blue states how can he win in November?

Feb. 06 2008 10:25 AM
Amy from Westchester

Has there been any talk about a McCain Lieberman ticket and what effect might that have?

Feb. 06 2008 10:25 AM
chris from Manhattan

Ron Paul had a strong showing in northern and western states. Why are we not hearing more about this? 25% in Montana (2nd place), and double digits in Nevada, North Dakota, Alaska, Minnesota.

-Chris

Feb. 06 2008 10:25 AM
slowereastside from manhattan


Maybe someone didn't do their demographic homework (or they're just tired), but...Obama won the majority of the WHITE VOTE in California.

In terms of 'race relations', I certainly don't find that depressing (but then again, I'm not a Hillary fan).

Feb. 06 2008 10:23 AM
David from Manhattan

I'm wondering, since the Democratic primary voters on Super Tuesday seem evenly split between Hillary and Obama: what are the chances of a Super Ticket? Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton -- either way, I'd be thrilled! Their strengths fill in for the other's weaknesses.

Feb. 06 2008 10:23 AM
Jim from NYC

A group of us last night had questions about the voting proceedure. Some of us pulled the lever only for the candidate and no delegates, others for delegates committed to several delegates among the candidates but no candidate, and still others for one candidate and all of his/her delegates.

Were all of these votes accepted?

Feb. 06 2008 10:23 AM
Michael Dietsch from Brooklyn, NY

I have a question about the borough-by-borough breakdown in NYC.

In four of the five boroughs, Clinton won a clear majority:

Manhattan: 54% - 44% to Clinton
Bronx: 60% - 38%
Queens: 60% - 38%
Staten Island: 61% - 36%

But look at Brooklyn: 50% - 48% to Clinton

Is that near parity significant? If so, what do you make of it? (For the record, I voted for Obama in Brooklyn.)

Feb. 06 2008 10:23 AM
rick from nyc

why, when there was such criticism about "bringing race into the race" do all the commentators on all shows talk about race and gender demographics. and justify good results based upon race and gender demographics, and are suprised about results based upon race and gender demographics?

Feb. 06 2008 10:22 AM
Diane from Caldwell NJ

Can you tell me about the demographics of Kansas and Oklahoma? I was surprised because I thought these were two very conservative populations.

Feb. 06 2008 10:22 AM
smidely

Blacks and Jews (and probably other "groups") are split.

Is the real story that finally there is proof that demographics are BUNK?

Feb. 06 2008 10:22 AM
Mohamed Badissy from Le Village

One more question, is there any data on the religious views of the Barack Obama supporters? As a muslim I was naturally drawn to Obama and I wonder if that is a general trend.

Feb. 06 2008 10:21 AM
Talia from New Jersey

I really like Obama's charisma and his claim to wish to unite all parties and change the way Washington works. One thing that I'm wondering about, as a New York area Jew is, what's Obama's position on Jews & Israel. There's been a lot of negative talk passed around (possibly affecting Obama's success among Jews in NY?) and I was wondering if he ever expressed his attitude towards Jews & Israel or if all the negativity is just slander?

Feb. 06 2008 10:21 AM
BenRoberts from Sandy Hook, CT

Politico reports Obama campaign sayingnthey won more delegates than Clinton, which is not wwhat Brian said in his intro. Also, what was the overall vote split accross all contests for the Dems? And how about the propsects of this going all the way to the convention now?

Feb. 06 2008 10:21 AM
jjl

% of Dems voted?
% of Repubs voted?

Anything notable there?

Feb. 06 2008 10:21 AM
Mohamed Badissy from Le Village

Could you please explain the "Super Delegates", it looks like half of each candidates total is in super delegates. Is it really possible that these candidates would change their mind and cast their vote for the candidate they are not affiliated with? Could this happen before the convention?

Feb. 06 2008 10:21 AM
burtnor from W. 89 St (Broadway-West End Ave)

One extraordinary result is Obama's strength in red states. Did he attract independents? Disaffected Republicans? Rural, white voters?

Doesn't that bode well for a national campaign in which the states Hillary carried would vote Democratic anyway, but he could bring along many others?

Feb. 06 2008 10:20 AM
Laura from NJ

I want to hear more about Missouri!? It was so tight! What happened?

Feb. 06 2008 10:18 AM
HMac from NY, NY

Where on the web can one find the details of each districts delegate results?

Feb. 06 2008 10:18 AM
jsu from bronx

He won in Red states because he can carry more votes. This is a good thing. Particularly in the general election. It shows OBAMA CAN WIN R E D STATES WHILE HILLARY APPARENTLY CAN'T. It just reinforces Obama's assertion that he is more electable throughout the country. Hillary just won the Blue states that Democrats mostly win during a general election. Which we know from past presidential elections, winning just the east and west coast is not enough. It is clear Obama has a winning trend. AND he will only get stronger as people start believing and hearing his message.

Feb. 06 2008 10:18 AM
Aleisha from D.C.

Does Clinton's total delegate count include delegates from Michigan and Florida?

Feb. 06 2008 10:13 AM
Ella from NJ

I see a pattern in Obama's wins - independents (CT), caucuses; and in NM and MO, he only won by a hair.

Feb. 06 2008 10:11 AM
hjs from 11211

why were obamas wins mostly in red states?

Feb. 06 2008 10:07 AM
Patrick from Queens

Regarding punishing Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries forward.

If neither candidate has achieved the required delegate count after South Dakota and Montana vote on June 3rd, then Michigan and Florida should hold a second primary, and the delegates from those two primaries should be seated at the convention.

Feb. 06 2008 10:03 AM
Patrick from Queens

The Democratic candidates are essentially tied with one half of the vote counted. The national party has punished Florida and Michigan for moving there primaries up, by threatening to not seat their delegates. Would not a better punishment be to force those primaries to go last?

In other words if the election is not decided between the candidates after South Dakota and Montana vote on June 3rd. Then Michigan and Florida should hold a second primary, and those delegates should be seated.

Feb. 06 2008 09:58 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.