Mr McCain won the big states of California and New York, although Mike Huckabee did better than expected.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won in New York and California, but rival Barack Obama also did well by winning in 13 states.
It was the biggest day in the race to pick candidates in November's election.
But the campaigns are already looking ahead to contests on Saturday in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state and 12 February primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC.
Race not yet run
Mr McCain's gains seriously wounded his main rival, Mitt Romney, the BBC's James Coomerasamy in Washington says.
Mr McCain also won in Illinois, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Missouri, Connecticut, Delaware, and his home state of Arizona.
In many Republican races, the winner takes all the state delegates to the national party convention. New York alone comes with 87 delegates.
The Democratic race was as tight as forecast, although Mrs Clinton secured the two biggest prizes.
In New York, her home state, she captured about 57% of votes to Mr Obama's 40%.
In California, with most precincts counted, Mrs Clinton had won 52% of Democratic votes and Mr Obama about 42%.
Mrs Clinton also took Arizona, Massachusetts and New Jersey, as well as the southern, rural states of Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas.
However Mr Obama won a greater number of states, namely Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and his home state of Illinois.
| | I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner John McCain |
The Democratic caucuses in New Mexico remained unsettled. Mrs Clinton had a 117-vote lead when the party shut down its counting operation until 1600 GMT on Wednesday.
Before the final results were in, Mr Obama told supporters: "We don't need the final results to know our time has come."
In terms of delegates captured, Mrs Clinton was only marginally ahead - under the Democrats' system of proportional distribution.
Both are still well short of the 2,025 needed to secure the party's nomination.
'All the way'
Overall, voters were choosing 42% of delegates on Super Tuesday.
| | REPORTS FROM THE CAMPS |
In each state's primary or caucus, successful candidates are awarded delegates who formally choose the party's nominee at the national convention in six months' time.
In Arizona, Mr McCain's told supporters: "We must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner for the presidency of the United States."
However it was Mr Huckabee who took the first state to announce a result, West Virginia.
| | WHAT IS SUPER TUESDAY? 24 states holding simultaneous contests to help decide the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations About 40% of each party's delegates - who will choose the candidate - are up for grabs Key states electing large numbers of delegates include California, New York and Illinois |
Overall, he went on to confound the polls, which had put him in a distant third, and came not far behind Mr Romney.
He won across the south, in Arkansas, where he used to be governor, as well as Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.
"We are still on our feet and much to the amazement of many we are getting there folks," he told supporters in Arkansas.
Mr Romney won in Colorado, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Alaska and Utah.
The former Massachusetts governor said he was not about to drop out of the race and was "going all the way to the White House".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7229895.stm
9 comments:
My thoughts:
I am happy to see that Obama did as well as he did on the Democratic side. Basically he and Hilary are running in a dead heat. I still hope that the support for Barack can win over the Democrats in the remaining states. I think that he has a much better chance nationally, especially if the Republican candidate is McCain (who has a rather wide appeal). Not to mention that he is a better overall candidate if you ask me.
On the Republican side, I guess I am happy McCain is the front runner. He is the best of the big three Republicans. I am not happy to see how many states that Huckabee won. Though the flip-side of that is that those are states stolen from Romney and he is breaking up the conservative base so that a more moderate candidate like McCain is coming out on top.
Sorry Ron Paul, it was a valiant effort.
Oh that we lived in a world where Ron Paul and Dennis K. were winning the votes. I am sure Beck just thinks that I am too "lefty" (and honestly I think he has no idea what most of the "Left" is all about), but I think it is sad that the only two candidates that have continuously come out vigorously against US imperialism and particularly against the conduct of the "war on terror" had such seriously mediocre support.
I guess logical arguments like Paul's that US military presence in other countries promotes attacks on the US and Kucinich's normative arguments that the US should use it's wealth and power to promote global peace and justice rather than trying to further increase its hegemony have fallen on deaf ears. Ah well. Long live American hegemony. We think we know what's best for the world, and they can either choose to agree or suck it. (And by "it" I mean a US military presence or economic sanctions I guess).
However the election is decided the changes will be minor. But that said, at least Obama talks a good game and seems like he wants to bring about some change. So if he is the nominee I will vote for him (as I guess will do in the primary here). But if not...Green party here I come (again).
Yeah! Suckit Limbaugh! I know you guys can barely stand to listen to the guy (hell *I* can't stand to listen to him), but tuning into his show this afternoon and hearing him and the hard right callers gnash their teeth over McCain's lead was a real treat...
And might I add, good for him. I'm glad McCain is pulling ahead of (if not trouncing) Huckabee and Romney...
Now, if the Dems would just hurry up an get their shit straight... :P I'm really hoping that Obama eeks out ahead at some point here. Hillary's longevity is beginning to make me antsy in my pantsy...
PS: Reed, I know it's hard to fathom, but it doesn't necessarily follow that understanding America's polarized, political "left" means agreeing with what it is about. Dissent does not necessarily imply ignorance... especially when the topic of discussion is as subjective as personal politics.
And yes, I think you are a touch too far to the left. :) I'm pretty sure being that deep into the political spectrum causes cancer or something...
I agree, being steeped too far in one extreme of the political spectrum or the other probably causes cancer. But I think being a political moderate is highly correlated with impotence. I forget which direction the causality flows.
And honestly, I can't recall what statements I have made the make me seem like some kind of a an extremist. I am not necessarily refuting that, though I have had plenty of people on the left call me a moderate. I believe that the market should be regulated because it too often serves the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I think that the government has a responsibility to provide equal opportunities for education, jobs, and health care to all its citizens regardless of their race or socioeconomic status. I believe that those on the top have a moral (as well as economic) responsibility to help raise up those on the bottom. And I think that if they don't, then the state needs to help readjust things. Economic conservatives may argue that people just need to help themselves, but they seem to forget that structural inequalities promote the status quo and lead to further stratification, which has severely negative consequences for most if not all of the country. But I digress. Lastly, I think America should use its position in the world to promote global peace , justice, and economic prosperity for everyone. This goes back to the previous argument. Those on top have a moral duty to help those on the bottom. Whether it's international or domestic politics, the rich and powerful got where they are by manipulating, exploiting, suppressing, or otherwise profiting (sometimes legitimately) off of those below them. It is understandable that all countries want to maintain or promote their positions, but if and when that necessitates the maltreatment of other people I am opposed to it, both because I think it is immoral (Dennis K.) and because it generates backlash that we all suffer (Ron Paul).
Is all that really that far left. And if so, I guess I am.
Yes it is, and Yes it does.
:P
Listen, I've never said that I think Liberalism is bad. In fact, I think it's absolutely necessary for society to progress. But I also believe that Conservatism (with a healthy dose of political Realism) is absolutely necessary to keep society functioning properly.
And really, from the moderate point of view, Liberals and Conservatives mostly want exactly the same things: a free society where everyone has the freedom to achieve happiness and exercise their liberty; a society where the strong protect the weak, and we promote those same values abroad.
Most of the disagreements come in how we achieve these things, and who's responsibility it is to do so. As a moderate, I feel I live in the best of both worlds: I believe in a government that provides for those who are unable to provide for themselves... but not to the point where we exclude the role of personal responsibility, or wastefully support those who just don't want to support themselves.
I believe in a government and laws that are fundamentally blind to color, gender, or sexual preference.
I believe that it is in our country's (and the world's) interest for the United States to maintain a strong powerbase, both economically and militarily.
I believe in a government that strongly funds science and education.
But above all, I believe in personal responsibility for one's own welfare. It's NOT the government's job to make me happy or successful. I don't mind it providing a safety net, but it's not the job of the wealthy or the government to assure my success in life.
So on and so forth. I believe in striking a proper balance between Liberalism (progress) and Conservatism (caution).
I know that there are many on the Right and the Left who think that being a Moderate means believing in nothing, or not knowing what one believes... and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that neither party provides a platform that we can believe 100% in.
PS: IF you know anyone who thinks you are a moderate, you need to tell them to go to a doctor immediately... they most definately have cancer, most likely of the brain. :P
Umm, again, what have I said that seems so radically left? It's not like we are disagreeing on core issue, more just magnitude. We both want a safety net, I just want the wealthiest segments of society to pay a little more. They did not get where they are independent of the people on the bottom. Plus I am not sure how anyone can look at the increasing stratification of wealth in the country and the magnitude of corporate greed and focus on the bottom line profit and not want to change things. Conservative economics (e.g. trickle down theory) says that profits at the top should cascade down the latter. Great theory. But it never happened in any meaningful way. The really wealthy got theirs in the 1980s and then moved all the jobs to Mexico and Indonesia in the 1990s. So, in a sense, it's like the working class got screwed twice. Is that perspective ultra-lefty? Sure, people need to take individual responsibility, but what options do they have when their job of 25 years evaporates and the CEOs laugh it up all the way to the bank? Peronal responsibility? Sure, Wal-mart is hiring at $6 bucks an hour. That's an awesome substitute for your textile job or machinist job or whatever. The thing is, the upper echelons of the economy as well as the nation as a whole have benefited from that transition. That one guy (and thousands like him) have gotted fucked. Since the wealthy as well as the nation as a whole has benefited from the transition, they both owe that guy some back. And a couple months of crap ass unemployment is not enough.
As for, security. Sure, the world and the US benefit from the US being a strong military and economic power. I am not arguing against that...well, not for the most part. But bullying other countries either economically or militarily is another issue. Imperialist practices are not about keeping us strong as much as keeping others weak. I just think we can use our strength in more proactive ways that don't result in unfortunate outcomes for others. But I guess compromise, diplomacy, cooperation, and collective benefits over individual gains is too lefty or idealist.
I don't mind the wealthy paying more to the federal government to help those who are less fortunate... I just call foul when we ask those who are successful to pay proportionately more as they are more successful. A "Success Penalty" violates my sense of fairness. Granted, I know there are plenty of people who inherited their wealth and didn't necessarily earn it. But there are plenty of people who did, and I don't think it's in our best interests to stunt the growth of those who actually provide jobs, and cut the paychecks. I think we'd be better served giving businesses financial benefits for providing jobs, rather than just picking their pockets and handing it to the growing number of people who aren't trying to better their lives or live responsibly. (The latter of which needs smarter investing to fix, and is a whole 'nother topic of discussion)
Security: I understand what you're saying Reed, and I actually wish that it were entirely plausible, I do. But the neo-realist in me has to point out that "using our power in more proactive ways" doesn't really work if those who oppose us don't particularly want to cooperate.
There are too many nation states out there looking out for number one that aren't interested in allowing us to use our influence to improve the lives of their people if doing so means undercutting their sovereignty, authority, or personal power. And that's not to say that we should only look out for number one, far from it. But the instant we try to use our influence to change how another state behaves, we are now imperialist bullies. Regardless of whether that empire is built on military power, economic power, or cultural influence (or all of the above).
So how does one coerce the government of another nation to "do the right thing" if one does not use force, or engage in "collective punishment"?
The latter of which I know is an issue of particular interest to you. If I remember correctly, Pope tells me that you've actually done a lot of research into international sanctions, and whether or not they are an effective mode of persuasion... I would actually like to hear more about what you have to say on the subject at some point.
On the last point I have an article coming out sometime later this year that addresses this issue. In a nutshell, the fining is that sanctions are most often counter productive and they actually lead to an increase in repression in the target state.
I would be fine if the US used its power to promote a common good, but that gets tricky since the hegemon proposes what the common good is, whether its who gets access to nuclear weapons or that the entire world get on board with globalization. Not everything the US does is evil or imperialistic. Sometimes it intervenes for the right reasons--Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Other times it's just throwing its weight around in order to keep its position on top. But I guess in a few years we will see how the US feels when China is calling the shots. Then I am sure we'll all bitch about how China is the imperialist and doesn't play fair. And we'll probably be right. It sort of is the nature of the hegemon to act that way. But it doesn't make it right.
And I think the way to get countries to do the right thing is through soft power, dialog, and diplomacy. War should always be a last option. Sometimes it's necessary, sure. I would agree 100%. But we seem to provoke other states soooo much. Take for instance the US plan to put a missile shield over Europe. Sounds harmless, sure. But from a realist prospective (which you seem to like), that move undermines Russia security by rendering their nuclear weapons ineffective. From a realist perspective Russia should then find someway to retaliate, for example, by attempting to remove the shield or developing someway around it. In a worse case scenario it might attack in order to preempt the shield and secure its power. Everyone is acting rationally, but the outcome is crap and could have been solved another way.
True enough about the missile shield. And the realist in me recognizes that this was going to upset the balance of power in Europe, and provoke Russia to respond. It was a bad move, no doubt about it.
Now, Russia is in no shape to exert itself militarily, and it knows it. We can build the missile shield because there's really nothing Putin can do to threaten. But even so, that won't always be the case, and we don't want to push Russia into a position where it feels threatened.
Because really, what matters the most isn't so much the balance of power, but the balance of threat. If we can build the missile shield under the framework of an agreement that removes the perception of threat, then Russia wouldn't feel a need to resist it or act against it.
If I really wanted a missile shield in Europe, and I could somehow guarantee that the technology wouldn't spread to those we don't particularly care for, I would actually mull the idea of offering the missile shield technology to the Russians.
The Good:
- A restoration of some of the trust lost between the U.S. and Russia in recent years
- Gives Russia a place of partnership in our policy of containing rogue states, instead of a rather demeaning bench seat on the sidelines that undermines their influence
- Implements a long-term military relationship that builds a stronger bond between our two states.
The Bad:
- Russia is still rife with corruption, and is still finding it's feat socially and economically. Could we really trust them to keep such technology out of the hands of folks like North Korea, or Iran?
- Russia is also slowly gravitating away from its democratic reforms... Putin is a scary man, and I'm not entirely sure we can trust him or his motives. I know for a fact he doesn't trust us, and resents the role we played in the implosion of the Soviet Union.
But trust has to start somewhere, right?
Post a Comment