Super Duper Tuesday

Written by  //  February 7, 2008  //  Fucked-Update  //  26 Comments

The media is so overdramatic about this shit.


Super Tuesday has passed us by. On February 5th, 24 states held primaries or caucuses to help determine who the two major parties will nominate to run in the general election next November. Exciting stuff, yes? Well, only if you believe all the hype. Don’t get me wrong here: Super Tuesday was pretty damn important, but there are a few more primaries to go and nothing is set in stone yet. Huffington Post has the results, if you’re interested in looking at things state-by-state, but I’ll skip the details here for those of you who don’t get all swoony over electoral politics. In the GOP, McCain is led with 9 states, followed by Romney with 7 and Huckabee with 5. Obama took 14 states leaving Clinton with 9.

So what does this all mean? I’m glad you asked….

Obama vs. Clinton in the Super Tuesday Showdown

Deep down, they really love each other.

With Obama taking more states than Clinton, it would seem that he’s in the lead, right? Well….not necessarily. The Democratic party likes to make primary season more complicated by splitting delegates between candidates based on the percentage of the vote they get. This means that in a Democratic primary, even the loser in a state walks away with a few delegates. We won’t know until all the states vote just how many delegates each candidate has. Then there are superdelegates, who can basically vote however the fuck they want to, no matter how the state primaries turn out. Superdelegates are generally elected officials, i.e. Democratic members of congress, Governors, and other snooty politician types. A shitload of superdelegates have already pledged votes to either Obama or Clinton. There’s a list here. Clinton seems to be up right now, but the list of superdelegates won’t be finalized until March 1.

McCain’s Super Tuesday Smackdown…Well, Sorta….

McCain’s game face

The GOP primaries are slightly less complicated because most of their primaries are winner take all. So if a district has 5 delegates, the winner gets five and the loser gets nothing. So unless something big happens in the remaining GOP primaries, McCain is probably gonna get the nomination. Of course, the Republican Convention also has unpledged delegates who aren’t required to vote based on the state primaries. The GOP primary races have stayed relatively close between the top top three candidates, but the delegate count is still pretty high in favor of McCain due to the whole winner-take-all thing. Unpledged convention delegates could have an affect on that, depending on how much the GOP hates McCain at that particular moment. Since the Republican convention is held after the Democratic convention, I would guess that the naming of the Democratic nominee could have some impact on who the unpledged delegates pick. You know…they’ll choose the candidate who looks the best next to the Dems candidate.

2008: The Year Both Major Parties Implode?


If these are the choices next November, prepare to be dazzled….

Republican infighting in the last year has brought me more joy than just about anything in my life (except maybe cigarettes). Sadly, the Democrats are beginning to look as though they might fall apart, due to the freakish amount of Hillary Hate that has been spewed by journalists, bloggers, pundits, and just about anyone else who thinks people actually listen to them. Personally, I still think Clinton is a stronger candidate than any of the Republicans, sexism and irrational hatred notwithstanding. A lot of Democrats and/or progressive types that I’ve spoken to lately have voiced concerns that if she gets the nomination and runs against John McCain, there is no possible way she can win. “She’s too polarizing,” they say. I would love to find the person who first used the term “polarizing” to refer to the Clinton campaign and beat them upside the head for giving millions of Democrats an excuse to run from her in fear. I understand that a lot of people hate her. The thing is, they’re hating her for irrational reasons. Now, let me make this clear: there are totally rational reasons to not support Clinton. I’m not saying all people who don’t support Clinton or fuckwads. I’m talking about the phenomenon that leads people to go batshit crazy every time someone mentions Senator Clinton’s name. That is the totally irrational stuff. Besides, it’s not like the Republican candidates are perfect….

John McCain is hardly the golden boy of the Republican party. Prominent conservatives have been all over McCain for his stance on immigration, global warming, stem cell research, his involvement in the Gang of 14, and his refusal to support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Here are a few examples of how Clinton isn’t the only “polarizing” candidate in the race for the Oval Office.

“McCain will kill conservatism as a dominant force in the Republican Party.”–Radio Host, Rush Limbaugh, Monday February 4, 2008

“Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life “–James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family…beloved by evangelical Christians the world over

“If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he’s our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she’s more conservative than he is,”–Ann Coulter. Who then went on to say she will campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination.

So see there…everyone is polarizing. The Republicans hate all their candidates. Would a Clinton nomination cause a big divide in the party? Well…maybe. But it looks like the GOP is gonna be divided no matter what.

About the Author

Cap'n Colleen

Cap'n Colleen is Donnybrook's political columnist and militant, dangerous, international activist.

View all posts by

26 Comments on "Super Duper Tuesday"

  1. Bang Tango'ed February 7, 2008 at 11:22 am · Reply

    In terms of pure electability, Obama is the only choice for the Dems, regardless of the republican nominee. If Clinton wins the nomination, the Democrats will not win the election.

    How do you guys think the Middle East, along with other countries where women are not equal with men, will react to a woman president. I know this is a sexist question, but I’m disappointed that this issue has yet to be addressed in the debates. It’s a legitimate concern. I could definitely see countries like China, North Korea, and Iran having serious issues dealing with a woman who is more powerful than them.

  2. Bang Tango'ed February 7, 2008 at 11:25 am · Reply

    I forgot to mention. The reason the Dems will not win if Clinton is the nominee is there will be a large number of Dems/Independants who will vote for anyone other than Clinton just to ensure that anyone other than Clinton gets elected. I don’t foresee Obama having this problem.

  3. Cap'n Colleen
    Capn Colleen February 7, 2008 at 11:36 am · Reply

    Sigh…

    Ok, Bang Tango’ed. As usual, I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re wrong.

    In terms of electability, I think you’re being hasty in counting out Clinton from the beginning. I’m not disagreeing that a whole lot of people hate her. I’m not saying that people will be thrilled to vote for her, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t.

    I mean, she’s never been my first choice, but I’ll vote for her over John fucking McCain in a heartbeat. I had pretty deep-seated loathing for Kerry in ’04, but I voted for him anyway. So there’s no real way to tell what people will decide.

    The only advantage Obama has over Clinton is that he automatically gets the moron vote. Which is certainly not to say that all people who support Obama are morons, but people who don’t really know anything about either candidate will lean towards Obama because he’s charismatic, he’s the darling of the media, and no one has made it their priority to air his dirty laundry on national television yet. If he gets the nomination, that would certainly change. I think he’s probably a decent guy, but you don’t get that much power that fast by being a decent person. That’s just not how politics work in this country.

  4. Cap'n Colleen
    Capn Colleen February 7, 2008 at 11:52 am · Reply

    As for the “we should elect a dude because middle eastern countries hate women in power” argument…..

    I’m not even sure I can muster a coherent response to that right now without devolving into girl power rhetoric or bitching about patriarchy.

    Ugh.

    Ok…trying. Trying.

    For years, every time the idea of a woman running for President comes up, people have said “America’s not ready for a female President.” and now that we have a candidate with a good shot, people say “the world isn’t ready for America to have a female President.”

    So when, huh? How long do I have to wait until I can walk into a voting booth for a Presidential election and cast a ballot for someone of my gender? I mean, I guess women have only had the right to vote for 88 years, so maybe it takes longer before we can work our way up to the highest office in the country. I mean, after all, when men got the right to vote they had to…oh wait….nevermind….

    I know that there are parts of the world where the general feeling is that women are inferior and should have no rights. I know that there are governments in the middle east that do crazy shit like stoning women to death in honor killings and throwing rape victims in jail and not letting women go to school or drive or leave the house alone. I get that the men who run those countries could get a little miffed at having to go to state dinners led by a woman or engage in peace talks with a woman or negotiate with a woman.

    Well, fuck ‘em.

    It’s awfully goddamn convenient that our nation sits idly by for the last 6.5 years while the administration spews vicious rhetoric about the governments and people of the middle east like we’re so much better than they are and we’re so much more righteous than they are and now we suddenly feel the need to pander to their misogynist bullshit because they wouldn’t respect us with a female leader.

    I don’t buy it. It’s just another excuse.

    And here I’ll put the usual disclaimer for Bang Tango’ed–This has been repeated over and over again in the media and just the other night, in fact, some dude at a bar told me this is why he would vote for McCain over Clinton even though he’s a Democrat. Well, I’m not trying to personally insult you or call you a misogynist, but try to understand how fucking frustrating it is to finally see some glimmer of hope for a female president and have people continually make excuses for why we can’t have one.

    I mean seriously, if we were fighting a war with a country known for it’s hatred of black people, do you seriously think that excuse would fly to keep Barack Obama out of office?

  5. Team Donnybrook
    godonnybrook February 7, 2008 at 1:02 pm · Reply

    Amen. Fuck ‘em. Here we are trying to be a role model for democracy so if we have a female president all the better for us as a leading country in world politics.

  6. Bang Tango'ed February 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm · Reply

    I’ll reply to each post individually.

    @Colleen

    Unfortunately the majority of American voters are more superficial and politically uneducated which ultimately drive the anyone but Hillary vote and moron vote. Sad but, in my opinion, true.

    Your notion of fuck the countries that don’t like the idea of a woman president, is not seeded in reality. It’s like saying I don’t care if walking into traffic might result in getting hit by a car, I’m still going to do it. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, extreme prejudice towards women exists in countries that we have to do business with. It’s just the reality of the situation and a valid concern in this presidential race. I’m not saying it shouldn’t make you angry, I’m just saying that it should be taken into consideration when making your own personal decision on who to vote for.

    @godonnybrook

    Setting an example is one thing. Making an example out of our country at the risk of hindering foreign relationships is masochistic, however melodramatic. If we digress to setting examples at the expense of the best interest of our nation how are is that any different than the bush administration’s complete fuck up of our middle eastern policy.

  7. Bang Tango'ed February 7, 2008 at 2:16 pm · Reply

    @Colleen

    Regardless of what you may think, I do very much like just about everything surrounding the gentler sex.

    I also hope you enjoy our discussions as much as I do. Yelling at the wall becomes tired, but yelling at you is like finally having a badminton partner to shuttlecock at. Apparently it’s a verb as well as a noun according to the all knowing internet.

  8. Cap'n Colleen
    Capn Colleen February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm · Reply

    Bang Tango’ed–

    I’m glad you enjoy our weekly disputes. I was beginning to feel like I was coming across as purposefully antagonistic. That’s really not the case, I just…well…I disagree with you a lot….which is fine with me. Glad to know there are no hard feelings.

    Now to continue with why I think you’re way off on this….

    If a Clinton win would make America the first country to elect a female leader, you might have a point. But since there are currently women leading the governments of Ireland, Chile, Germany, the Philipines, Liberia, Finland, New Zealand and India. ..just to name a few. If Benazir Bhutto (RIP) hadn’t been elected Prime Minister in a Muslim nation, you might have a point. If our enemies in the Middle East had said the reason they hate us so much is because our women have too much freedom, you might have a point.

    If Bush hadn’t sent Condoleezza Rice traipsing all over the middle east as Secretary of State for the last 3 years, you might have a point.

    But as it stands, you don’t. Seriously. You’ve bought into a convenient fear perpetuated by people who don’t want to see another Clinton in the White House. Especially if the Clinton in question has a pussy.

    There are plenty of reasons why a Clinton presidency could be bad news for our dealings in the Middle East…like how she voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and she takes more money from defense contractors than any other candidate….but neither of those things have anything to do with her gender.

  9. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 6:49 am · Reply

    I haven’t bought into it; I’ve only raised it as a topic of discussion. Not one of the countries you’ve listed, including Pakistan, are “leaders of the free world”. Hell they’re not even bat boys at the political baseball game in the sky. To invoke Bhutto is ridiculous considering she was killed by muslim extremists for being western and being a woman.

    Also throwing condi into the mix doesn’t help your argument either. The Bush administration, spearheaded by condi, has created an incredibly volatile situation in the middle east which has left us with few allies to lean on.

    So again, the rational is that sure we can do it, but is it in the best interest of our nation.

  10. Cap'n Colleen February 8, 2008 at 7:43 am · Reply

    There are a hell of a lot of theories for why Bhutto was assassinated. To assume that it’s simply because she was too western and a woman is kind of naive. Considering her leadership was plagued with rumors of corruption, she has a reputation for making controversial declarations, and she returned from exile to stand up to the current regime (which the fundamentalists happen to like), there are plenty of reasons why people would want her dead that have little to do with her gender. And the fact that she was assassinated isn’t a particularly relevant point considering I brought up as an example of a woman elected in a muslim country. That fact isn’t marred by the fact that she was assassinated after she was no longer in power.

    And I certainly don’t think Condi Rice has done any good in her various dealings with muslim nations, but that’s not because she’s a woman it’s because she’s one of Bush’s minions. The point isn’t that she’s been a valuable asset during all this, because I don’t think she has been.

    My point is that both Bhutto and Rice have done plenty of things to piss people off. So why jump to the conclusion that the real reason Bhutto was assassinated and Rice hasn’t done any good must be that they’re uppity female types?

    And who exactly are the “leaders of the free world”?

    And if fundamentalist muslims are so concerned about American women having too much power then why is the country with the worst reputation for violating women’s rights our closest ally?

    I’m not really sure there’s much point in discussing this any further because you don’t seem to understand that your argument is blatantly sexist. Or maybe you get that but you think sexism is fine if it serves some “rational” purpose. But it’s still a fucking sexist argument and unless you can understand that and understand how offensive it is in light of our country’s history with women’s rights and the current cultural climate here, then you’re never going to be able to see my point.

  11. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 10:21 am · Reply

    I’m not going to go knocking on crackhouse doors in five points at 2am either. Is that racist or just thinking with a level head?

  12. Cap'n Colleen February 8, 2008 at 10:29 am · Reply

    it’s racist to presume that all crackhouses in five points at 2 am are filled with non-white people.

    also…electing a female President is completely different than your aforementioned scenario.

  13. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm · Reply

    god tap dancing jesus dammit. I typed out a large reply only to somehow refresh the page and lose everything.

    synopsis:

    A female president could be beneficial or not beneficial with respect to foreign relations with saudi like companies. Both are a reality, one is true, neither are sexist.

  14. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm · Reply

    oh wait i found it.

    Theres only two options. One, that a woman president will be beneficial for foreign relations with countries like Saudi Arabia, or, two, it will not be beneficial for foreign relationships with Saudi-ish countries. Both are realities, and just because you believe one is the true reality doesn’t make you sexist, it just means you identify that reality as a valid possibility.

    It is a valid possibility. Granted most middle eastern countries won’t bat an eye at it because they need us more than we need them (kinda), but it could be more of an issue when trying to maintain relations with the wackos of the world, iran, north korea,

  15. meow February 8, 2008 at 12:36 pm · Reply

    im not gonna read the 14 above comments, so stop if you’ve heard this before… but

    if dobson, limbaugh, AND coulter all hate mccain so much, there’s a chance i may vote for him.

    apparently there’s rumors floating around that whoever the dem’s nominate, the other will get the VP slot. clinton didnt confirm or deny this… but i just dont think that can happen.
    i do think alot of people will vote anti-clinton just to keep her out. and they know that, so i dont think she would get either the nomination or the VP.
    and the democrats have to realize that a card with BOTH a woman and a ‘man-of-colour’ would lose across the board, except with people like me and the CAPN.

    and hell, all of this is mute anyway, because bush is never gonna step down.

  16. Cap'n Colleen February 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm · Reply

    Bang Tango’ed–
    So let’s assume for a second that you’re right about the consequences of electing a female President and that you think sexism is a bad thing.

    Is it just to deny a qualified candidate the right to the Presidency because the candidate in question happens to be of a race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability level or whatever, that other countries find unfit to lead a country? Is that the kind of character we want our nation to have? That we disenfranchise people because members of another nation don’t like it?

    I’m sure they don’t like that women here leave our heads uncovered and show our ankles either, but is that a justifiable reason to deny an American citizen anything?

    And we’ll always have issues with the Middle East. We’ll always be involved in the Middle East in some capacity (assuming no one decides to blow up the whole fucking region). And sexism will always exist in some form, so should we then deny women the opportunity to be elected President forever? When does it stop? How much longer should we wait?

    And as for you, Meow—

    I just love it when your excessive Bush paranoia shines through…. Of course, I call it paranoia now, but you could totally turn out to be right about all this shit…the Dude is a fucker of the highest order.

    I don’t think there’s any chance of an Obama/Clinton ticket…that would be seen as too much of a contradiction to his anti-establishment rhetoric (of course, so is taking Ted Kennedy on the campaigning with him). A Clinton/Obama ticket could happen, but I seriously doubt it will. I actually think that would be a pretty decent idea, but it’ll never happen.

    And as for people not voting for a woman and a black man… I think if they were Republican candidates, that would be a legitimate fear. They won’t get the redneck independent vote, but those assholes will probably vote for McCain anyway.

    And McCain is so horrendous that I don’t see many Democrats (ones who actually hold Democratic ideals) voting for him no matter who the Dem nominee is.

  17. Ivyy February 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm · Reply

    Clinton/OBama is my greatest fantasy these days. That would basically assure the Dems of a 16 year stretch of good leadership. I don’t think it’ll happen, either, but I can hope, right?

  18. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm · Reply

    I’m foreseeing Obama/Edwards and Clinton/Coulter, I mean Clinton/Richardson..

  19. Cap'n Colleen February 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm · Reply

    John Edwards as a VP candidate would make me go weak in the knees.

    I. Love. That. Man.

  20. Bang Tango'ed February 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm · Reply

    Because he’s so sexy?

  21. Cap'n Colleen February 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm · Reply

    The Edwards sexiness is just an added bonus.

    It’s mostly because I believe in him.

    But then there’s also the sexy.

  22. Sid Pink
    Sid Pink February 9, 2008 at 4:53 am · Reply

    Sweet Christ in Hell, my Dears – -
    Let’s remember that politics is, essentially, a ‘branding initiative’.
    Nothing more.
    Anyone remember the Powerhouse Duo of Mondale/Ferraro?

    Exactly.

    Get past gender, race, neo-con vs. Reaganesque – - and focus on accessibility, sound-biteage, and oneupsmanship.

    Why?!?

    Because – in the end; face-pissing about ‘first female’ or ‘first [almost] black’ presidencies seems like a noble and worthwhile academic endeavor.. but – it’s only about Asses in Seats. Eyeballs. The Last [godforsaken] Mile.
    We [the USA] – are arguably the most fear-driven and ill-informed and ignorant nation on Earth when it comes to our own politics.
    Do we all *love* Edwards?
    Sure. But recall, my Sweet – he already *was* a VP candidate and that ended up being worth less than those 95 seconds you dick out of a Bruckheimer movie to take a piss.

    This is the real, now, for real Real Final For Real World.
    It Sucks — – and it will never stop.

    Vote with your Whole Mind and Heart when the time comes – because this race is already over within the halls of King-Maker-y.

    ;-)

  23. Mary Robertson February 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm · Reply

    God bless you, Sid Pink. Sid Pink for President!

  24. Team Donnybrook
    godonnybrook February 19, 2008 at 12:01 pm · Reply

    Sid Pink has the Donnybrook endorsement. He’s our best chance.

  25. Bang Tango'ed February 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm · Reply

    I’m voting for Mary-Kate Olsen

  26. Team Donnybrook
    godonnybrook February 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm · Reply

    Mary-Kate for President
    Flava Flav for VP

Leave a Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

comm comm comm