Live Blog: Super Tuesday Results

Super Tuesday states and delegate counts

Hi Sky Dancers! Are you ready to rumble? No? Well then stick around for our live blog of the Super Tuesday primaries. The delegates of ten states that are voting today will all be distributed proportionally. There are no winner-take-all states. The polls close at (all times EST):

7:00PM in Vermont, Georgia, and Virginia
7:30PM in Ohio
8:00PM in Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Oklahoma
9:00PM in North Dakota
10:00PM in Idaho
12:00AM in Alaska.

There is quite a bit of disagreement about how many delegates each of the candidates has accumulated, so I’m going with Politico’s estimates:

Romney 180
Santorum 90
Gingrich 29
Paul 23
Huntsman 2

According to Nate Silver’s Guide to Super Tuesday, the outcome tonight

could reasonably range from one in which Mitt Romney seems to have the nomination all but wrapped up to a situation that casts his nomination in doubt.

Mr. Romney is likely to remain the favorite to win the nomination almost no matter what happens. He is also very likely to finish with the largest number of delegates from the evening. He comes into the night with perhaps the most favorable momentum he has had at any point in the nomination process; some of his disastrous outcomes were pushed aside by his wins in the past week in Michigan, Arizona and Washington.

Still, the line between a resplendent night for Mr. Romney and a suspect one is relatively slim, both in terms of the delegate count and the narrative it will generate. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have a lot on the line as well, possibly including their continued survival in the race.

Josh Putnam, a political science professor, says it’s already over before the votes are counted.

Santorum can’t get to 1144 …and neither can Gingrich.

FHQ has been saying since our Very Rough Estimate of the delegate counts a couple of weeks ago that Romney is the only candidate who has a chance to get there. But, of course, I have not yet shown my work. No, it isn’t mathematically impossible, but it would take either Gingrich or Santorum over-performing their established level of support in the contests already in the history books to such an extent that it is all but mathematically impossible. Santorum, for instance, has averaged 24.2% of the vote in all the contests. Since (and including) his February 7 sweep, he is averaging 34.7% of the vote. That is an improvement, but it is not nearly enough to get the former Pennsylvania senator within range of the 1144 delegates necessary to win the Republican nomination.

You can read the rest at Putnam’s blog.

At the WaPo, Chris Cilizza has a guide to the five storylines to watch tonight. You can read the whole thing at the link, but here’s his take on whether Romney can end it tonight:

From a delegate point of view, Romney is nowhere near clinching the nomination. (Check out our video explaining all of the delegate math.)

But, there is a path toward him closing out the nomination — for all intents and purposes — tonight. How? Romney needs to be able to claim a sort of national victory, winning somewhere in every region of the country.

The Northeast is locked up as Romney will cruise in his home-ish state of Massachusetts and Vermont. He’s likely to get a win (if not two) out of the Plains/West with the North Dakota and Idaho caucuses. Ohio is Romney’s chance in the Midwest/ Rust Belt.

That leaves the South. Gingrich is going to win Georgia. Santorum looks strong in Oklahoma and it’s somewhat debateable whether that counts as the South anyway. Tennessee is clearly Romney’s best chance to win in the South even though polling suggests that Santorum has a narrow edge….

If Romney wins — for the sake of argument — Ohio, Tennessee, North Dakota, Idaho, Vermont and Massachusetts — he can make a compelling case to the Republican establishment, which has been loathe to get off the sidelines thus far in the race, that he is the only national candidate left in the field.

Brent Budowsky claims that the Republican “establishment” (whoever they are) will “lay down the law” to the right wingers tomorrow.

When the rooster crows on Super Wednesday, the insider establishment that runs the GOP will lay down the law to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and all true conservatives: It is time to unite behind the candidate of the establishment that runs the party, which does not include Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Herman Cain or true conservatives of any kind.

The voting on Super Tuesday will determine whether this insider GOP establishment will have enough brute clout to force opponents of Mitt Romney out of the race beginning in earnest on Super Wednesday, or whether the the process must continue. The pressure to withdraw will be excruciating. The private inducements to drop out will be enormous. The threats against candidates refusing to drop out will be secret, but savage.

I’m not sure how Budowsky, a Democrat, knows this, but it sounds reasonable. Here’s a bit more:

In the GOP, the insider, banking, Wall Street and K Street establishment is the boss. Period.

True conservatives have been humiliated in this primary season because they began without a credible conservative presidential candidate and will likely end being force-fed Mitt Romney, whom most of them privately consider a phony (which he is) who will betray them if elected (which he will).

So have it! Let us know what you’re hearing in your neck of the woods or on whatever media outlet or big blog you are following. Personally, I’m still rooting for Romney to lose somehow, but I’m not all that hopeful it will happen.


Republican Presidential Candidates Beating Drums of War Against Iran

Mitt Romney speaking by teleconference at AIPAC

This morning I woke up at 6AM, which is pretty early for me these days. I tuned my satellite radio to MSNBC. A little later I got sleepy again and dozed off with the radio on. I woke up to the frightening sound of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum addressing AIPAC.

I admit that I don’t really understand the politics of the U.S.-Israel relationship very well, and and usually don’t follow it very closely. I was frankly stunned by the bloodthirstiness of the speeches from these two candidates. Newt Gingrich also addressed the conference, but I thankfully I didn’t hear his speech.

I don’t want to start any emotional arguments with this post. I just want to highlight what the Republican candidates have said about war with Iran, because I think both the content tone of their speeches is beyond irresponsible. I’m just going to highlight some of their statements and leave it to you to interpret them.

Mitt Romney

Romney fired his opening shot with an op-ed in the Washington Post, which I also linked in the morning reads. In the essay, Romney claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary. Romney:

Beginning Nov. 4, 1979 , dozens of U.S. diplomats were held hostage by Iranian Islamic revolutionaries for 444 days while America’s feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House. Running for the presidency against Carter the next year, Ronald Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price for continuing their criminal behavior. On Jan. 20, 1981, in the hour that Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released the hostages. The Iranians well understood that Reagan was serious about turning words into action in a way that Jimmy Carter never was.

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world.

Romney has no factual basis for these statements. As Ben Armbruster writes at Think Progress:

The International Atomic Energy Agency, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have all recently said that while they believe Iran may be moving toward a nuclear weapons capability, the regime has not made a decision to build a bomb. President Obama said just today that “ultimately the Iranians’ regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.”

In his speech to AIPAC this morning Romney said of Iran:

“I’ve also studied the writings and speeches of the jihadists,” Romney told the crowd. “They argue for a one-state solution. One all-dominating, radical Islamists state, that is. Their objective is not freedom, it’s not prosperity, it’s not a Palestinian state, it is the destruction is Israel that they seek. … I recognize in the Ayatollahs of Iran the zealot refrain of dominion.”

….

“Yet, the current administration has promoted a policy of engagement with Iran,” he continued. “The president not only dawdled in opposing sanctions, he’s opposed them. Hope is not a foreign policy. The only thing respected by thugs and tyrants is our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it.”

Raw Story also reports that Romney recently said the following to an 11-year-old Georgia boy:

“If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the world will change if that’s the case,” he said.

During a CNN debate last month, the candidate went one step further, stating that nuclear weapons would definitely be used if Obama wins in November.

“We must not allow Iran to use a nuclear weapon. If they do, the world changes and someday nuclear weaponry will be used. If I’m president, that will not happen. If we re-elect Barack Obama it will,” he insisted.

I’ve heard Romney make that claim before, and I find it shocking. It’s the most irresponsible claim I’ve heard made since LBJ’s 1964 daisy ad about Barry Goldwater, which was never used by the Johnson campaign.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney said of the Obama administration:

“The current administration has distanced itself from Israel and visibly warmed to the Palestinian cause. It has emboldened the Palestinians,” Mr. Romney told a convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “As president, I will treat our allies and friends like friends and allies.”

In recent days, Mr. Romney said, administration statements have emphasized the need for Israel to exercise caution when considering military action against Iran rather than the unacceptability of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I do not believe that we should be issuing public warnings that create distance between the United States and Israel,” Mr. Romney said. “Israel does not need public lectures about how to weigh decisions of war and peace. It needs our support.”

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum appeared in person at AIPAC and gave a bombastic 10-minute speech in which he viciously attacked President Obama. Here are some highlights:

“As I’ve sat and watched this play out on the world stage, I have seen a president who has been reticent,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.

“He says he has Israel’s back; from everything I’ve seen from the conduct of this administration, he has turned his back on the people of Israel,” he added to applause.

….I wanted to come off the campaign trail to come here because one of the reasons I decided to run for president is because of the grave concern I have about the security of our country and the leadership of our country in the face of a[n] existential threat to not just the state of Israel,” Santorum said. “But an existential threat to freedom loving people throughout the world, which is what Iran is.”

In November, Santorum called for a “premptive strike” on Iran. Today he suggested:

“These are essentially irrational actors. We need to put that ultimatum in place, and we need to be prepared, if that ultimatum is not met to engage Prime Minister [Benjamin]Netanyahu and the people of Israel in an effort to make sure that if they do not tear down those facilities, we will tear down them.”

Like Romney, Santorum claimed that administration reports about about Iran’s nuclear capabilities are lies.

“The fact that we have the chairman of the joint chiefs saying we’re not sure yet that Iran is really going to pursue or has made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon just shows again the disconnect that they know we have, that the insincerity of our leaders in telling the truth to the American public about what is actually going on in the American public today,”

Newt Gingrich

CBS News reports that Gingrich said he would “replace” the current Iranian regime.

“[I will] undermine and replace the Iranian dictatorship by every available method short of war,” Gingrich said via satellite to the pro-Israel lobby.

In addition to pledging regime change in Iran, he said he would do everything in his power to bolster the Israeli’s ability to counter and halt a nuclear Iran, which includes providing “all available intelligence to the Israeli government.”

Gingrich also threatened war with Iran and tossed aside any possibility of using diplomacy, claiming that Iran is already developing nuclear weapons.

“We will not keep talking while the Iranians keep building,” Gingrich said, hitting President Obama for continuing to back a diplomatic path to a nuclear-free Iran.

Gingrich made his comments as the international community continues its attempts to diminish the Iranian’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. The five members of the United Nations Security Council announced Tuesday that it will enter into discussions with Tehran over its nuclear program, and Iran said nuclear inspectors will be allowed to enter its secret military compound where nuclear work is expected.

…Gingrich dismissed diplomatic talks and said Iran has reached a crucial point in its weapons program.

“The red line is now because the Iranians are now deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons,” Gingrich said.

As I said, I don’t want to start an argument about the Israel-Palestine situation. I just wanted to highlight the warmongering speeches of the Republican candidates. Please keep your comments civil.


Limbaugh’s Latest Lame Excuse: Liberals Made Him Do It!

So much has been happening with the Rush Limbaugh story today, that I thought I’d post an update.

Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers are dropping like flies. This morning the eighth and ninth sponsors–AOL and Tax Resolution Services Co.–withdrew their ads form his show. This afternoon, two more sponsors–Bonobos and Sears–pulled their ads. It’s practically a stampede! At least one radio station, KPUA in Hawaii, has also cancelled the program.

Even John McCain–the closest thing the Republican Party has to an elder statesman–has now called Limbaugh’s behavior “totally unacceptable.”

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien,” the Arizona lawmaker and 2008 GOP presidential nominee said Limbaugh was an “entertainer,” but that the remarks were “totally unacceptable, totally and completely unacceptable, and there’s no place for it.”

Fluke herself said today on The View that Rush’s faux apology “doesn’t change anything,” noting that Limbaugh hasn’t called to apologize to her personally and she really hopes he doesn’t!

Media Matters has catalogued some of Limbaugh’s greatest hits from his “decades of sexism and misogyny.”

But Rush still doesn’t get it. On his Monday show, Limbaugh once again pretended to apologize for his disgusting behavior, while claiming liberals made him do it. Eric Wemple summarizes Limbaugh’s latest lame effort:

“Give me 30 minutes — I want to explain why I apologized,” said Limbaugh just after noon.

The reason he apologized, he says, is that he descended to such a low, such a scummy, gutter-level depth . . . that he started to resemble liberals: ”I don’t expect morality, intellectual honesty from the left — they’ve demonstrated their willingness to say or do anything. This is the mistake I made: In fighting them . . . I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge.”

Limbaugh further mentioned that he felt “very badly” because he’d “used those two words [slut and prostitute] to describe Sandra Fluke and I feel very badly about that. . . . I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words. . . . I ended up descending to their level. It’s important never to be like them.”

I can’t quite make sense of this, but it appears that Limbaugh is only sorry for the two words he used–slut and prostitute–but not for saying Fluke should post sex videos on the internet for him to watch or claiming that she “has so much sex” that she can’t afford all the pills she needs, or for claiming that she has boyfriends lined up around the block to have sex with her.

The show’s parent company Premiere Radio Networks also tried to explain away Limbaugh’s days of repulsive attacks on Sandra Fluke and the 99% of women who have used contraception:

Premiere Radio said in a statement Monday that it respects Limbaugh’s right to express his opinions, and said that “in an attempt at absurdist humor to illustrate his political point, Mr. Limbaugh used words that unfortunately distracted from the message he was trying to convey.”

The company said Limbaugh did the right thing by “expressing regret for his choice of words and offering his sincere and heartfelt apology to Ms. Fluke.”

I guess Premiere Networks and Clear Channel did not realize Limbaugh would spew out more personal attacks at Sandra Fluke today. It seems he is simply unable to control himself. From Think Progress:

LIMBAUGH: Her testimony was not that of an expert, it was just another expert person in this case, Sandra’s case. 30-year old activist after years of a career championing birth control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool, which is of course the left’s true agenda, and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. […]

Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends, who she says couldn’t afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn’t pay for them. … Or so she says. We still don’t know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don’t know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. […]

But the point here is that this was an issue that represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers.

So Fluke isn’t a “slut” anymore–she’s not only a dupe of the Democratic Party but also she’s duping the party into getting what she wants! WTF?! This incoherent moron is the spiritual voice of the Republican Party?

It appears that the suits in charge of Premiere Radio Networks and most likely Limbaugh’s lawyers are trying to get him to apologize, but he just can’t bring himself to do it. This mess has to be hurting the Republican Party, particularly on the eve of Super Tuesday, but it appears that most Republican leaders are still too afraid of this piggish, repulsive man to take any real action. You’d think at least Mitt and/or Ann Romney would speak up, since Bain Capital owns Clear Channel Communications.

I’ll update with any new developments in the comments to this post.


The Blow Back Cometh

Homo-not-so-erectus republicanus

What do you get when you attack women who use birth control as baby killing sluts, announce that your goals include giving more tax breaks to the rich, rail against social security and medicare, bash teachers and state employees as lazy over paid good for nothings, and threaten to start yet another war in the Middle East?  If your answer is Republicans with falling poll numbers and increased negatives, DING DING DING!!!!

As another round of voting takes place this week in the Republican presidential race – with 11 states holding Super Tuesday contests – a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the combative and heavily scrutinized primary season so far has damaged the party and its candidates.

Four in 10 of all adults say the GOP nominating process has given them a less favorable impression of the Republican Party, versus just slightly more than one in 10 with a more favorable opinion.

Additionally, when asked to describe the GOP nominating battle in a word or phrase, nearly 70 percent of respondents – including six in 10 independents and even more than half of Republicans – answered with a negative comment.

Some examples of these negative comments from Republicans: “Unenthusiastic,” “discouraged,” “lesser of two evils,” “painful,” “disappointed,” “poor choices,” “concerned,” “underwhelmed,” “uninspiring” and “depressed.”

The ever so noticeable march off the right bank of crazy river has driven women to Obama and made marginal front runner Romney’s image worse than Dole, McCain’s and Kerry’s at similar points in the race.

While the nomination battle has damaged the GOP and Romney, it has only helped President Obama’s political standing. In the poll, his approval rating stands at 50%-45%, his highest mark in the NBC/WSJ survey since Osama bin Laden’s death. What’s more, he leads Romney by six points, 50%-44%, winning independents (46%-39%), women (55%-37%), suburban women (46%-44%), and those in the Midwest (52%-42%). Obama enjoys bigger leads over Paul (50%-42%), Santorum (53%-39%), and Gingrich (54%-37%). Bolstering Obama’s standing is increased optimism about the state of the U.S. economy: 40% believe the economy will improve during the next year, and 57% say the worst is behind us (versus 36% who say the worst is still ahead). Peter Hart, the Democratic half of our NBC/WSJ survey, sums up the current poll’s outlook on the 2012 race: If it were a cocktail, it would be “one part Obama, one part the economy, and three parts the Republican Party’s destruction.”

I heard some interesting conversations over the weekend at the pundit tables.  One was about the possibility of Romney trying to move to the middle after charging hard right to capture the right and secure the nomination. The right wing has not been enthusiastic.  The damage with the middle is stunning.  Is there something called a triple flip flop?  Plus, if he does move to the middle, what does that do to the turn out for the flipped out right?  Do they stay home?  Will any one believe him at this point?  This poll indicates Romney is doing better with the TeaBots.  Seventy-two percent of all Republicans say they’re satisfied with a Mittens outcome.  Will they come out and vote for him on a cold, wet November day?

We’re going to be live blogging Super Tuesday tomorrow and BB’s got a morning thread for you that will have a lot of Super Tuesday information.  Will turn out be any better and will Romney get any where close to the 50% win mark in any state?  What will the eye of Newt do if all he gets is a Milquetoast win in Georgia?  Stay tuned, it’s getting brutal out there.


I See Dead People

Maybe this should be the new Republican mantra for a suitable candidate in 2012.  If Republican politicians aren’t conjuring up the ghost of Ronald Reagan every fifteen minutes, they can go back further into the annals of GOP glory and dig up another Republican corpse.  Say . . . Ike Eisenhower.  And lo and behold, that’s exactly what NY Times columnist Ross Douthat attempts in his recent “The Greatness of Ike” piece, which extolls the General’s many virtues, bemoans the fact that Eisenhower is overshadowed by the likes of FDR, ties for twelfth-place in POTUS rankings with Jimmy Carter and is generally under appreciated.

The man may have a point.

I recall Eisenhower’s warnings about the industrial/military complex being aired frequently throughout my living memory.  Yet no one has paid much attention beyond nodding and saying: yes, the man was right.  I suspect the current state of affairs, the country involved in a decade of senseless war, where defense contractors and mercenaries have been made fat and happy, proves the General’s point.  Only problem for the Republicans is that it was likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who led the disastrous charge into Iraq on false allegations, hyped-up claims about weapons of mass destruction, and then offered a breath-taking defense of torture for national security purposes.  Even more startling, they got away with it, leaving the country bleeding and bankrupt in their wake.  All in the name of democracy, freedom and ‘shop ‘till you drop’ exhortations.

It was a moment of infamy, as someone once said.

This is why the glance backwards always skips over those inconvenient years of woeful mismanagement and fiscal insanity.  No doubt the current batch of 2012 candidates, the Fearless Four, bring angst to all Republican hopefuls convinced, only a few, short months ago, that a 2012 victory was inevitable, a piece of cake.

A powerful dose of nostalgia makes the medicine go down easier.

Surely, the good ole days seem ever more grand as Rick Santorum raises the flag for a home-grown theocracy and dances with the Devil, Mitt Romney continues to stumble over his own tongue [revealing his wife drives ‘two’ Caddies], Newt Gingrich beats his breast over the secular plot to undermine America and Ron Paul, the cuddly libertarian, begins to look and sound strangely reasonable.

What’s a true-blue Republican to do?

Dig up some corpses.

Am I, a thoroughly disenchanted Democrat gloating?  In a pinch, yes.  In the long-term, no, because I’m stuck with a candidate I did not vote for in 2008, a man who has proven himself less a champion of Democratic principles than even I ever expected.

As a Nation, we are stuck in a rut for which there seem few alternatives.  The legacy parties offer nothing but more of the same—craziness on one side and the uninspiring ‘we suck less than they do’ on the other.  As a voter, I’ve vowed to go 3rd party  in November [unless the Republicans were to choose Santorum, then I’ll vote directly against him].  However, in the larger frame all I see are monied interests, directing and maneuvering what is suppose to be a ‘free’ election.  It has virtually nothing to do with me or my values.  On the contrary, it’s all about the persistence of a political class and their cash-soaked benefactors calling for war and protecting their national interests, the gutting of our social contract; the unwillingness to formulate a sensible energy program sans the giant fossil fuel companies’ interference or address the critical and devastating slippage in education, infrastructure, healthcare and employment opportunities.

We have plenty of money for bombs.  But not our people.  Bailouts are bad.  Unless our representatives are saving the asses of and colluding with the corrupt TBTFs.  Water and food is the stuff of life until there’s a pipeline, gushing with sludgy oil and money, to compromise both.

Ed Rollins, former Reagan strategist, made a statement recently about the 2012 Republican field:

“Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’

That about sums it up, not simply about the Republican field but the entire country.  It is an effing mess.  And there’s no savior on the horizon.  In fact, there’s no savior anywhere.  Unless we, the American public, do the saving.  But that means coming together on issues where we can agree.  The gridlock in DC gets us absolutely nowhere.  It’s enough to put anyone into a funk.

But then this morning I read an article about environmentalists and Tea Party activists coming together to fight Keystone XL, the pipeline extension from Nebraska to Texas.  For the Tea Party,  it’s all about individual property rights and the way TransCanada, a foreign company, has attempted to strong-arm property owners.  For the environmentalists it’s about preserving fertile farm land and a major aquifer from the too real danger of irreversible contamination.  The nexus of agreement between these two wildly divergent political groups is this: the Keystone pipeline does not serve the public’s interest.

That’s the winning hand: the public’s interest.  Not the oil companies, not the 196 people funding the SuperPacs, not the banks, not the Democratic or Republican parties.

What serves the public’s interest.

We, American citizens, can find ways to work together or continue to be spectators to the endless political theater, the Kabuki dance we call elections.  And once more we’ll be digging up corpses, which could very well be our own.