Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Mark Your Calendar | "It's not over 'till it's over... »

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Florida Results

posted by on January 29 at 17:22 PM

Clinton wins the Democratic primary—in which no delegates were at stake.

On the Republican side, with 25 percent of precincts reporting, it’s:

McCain 34, Romney 31, Giuliani 16, Huckabee 14

UPDATE: McCain wins Florida, while talk of an endorsement by the now dead-in-the-water Giuliani swirls.

RSS icon Comments

1

I think you meant to say that, in a surprise upset, Edwards got as many delegates as both Obama and Clinton.

(grin)

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 5:29 PM
2

Mike Gravel has 2.7% of the vote (!)

Posted by Sean | January 29, 2008 5:32 PM
3

Lolzathon, Giuliani is as good as gone

Posted by Do | January 29, 2008 5:32 PM
4

@2 I just noticed that in Orange County, where Orlando is. Mike Gravel has 19%. This has got to be a voting machine error.

check the following link to see for yourself:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/FL.html

Posted by ghostlawns | January 29, 2008 5:37 PM
5

McCain & Romney have their attorneys on speed dial due to the problem with the voting machines in Miami-Dade County. I guess this is what we can expect in the fall.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 5:39 PM
6

hasn't anyone in the GOP noticed that mccain is fucking senile?

i guess that's not an obstacle in the conservative world view.

Posted by max solomon | January 29, 2008 5:41 PM
7

@4 good catch. poor guy.

Posted by sean | January 29, 2008 5:43 PM
8

I feel a little bit sorry for Giuliani. Poor guy obviously underestimated the power of the ferret lobby in FL.

Posted by Bison | January 29, 2008 5:47 PM
9

Interesting exit poll in Florida: Clinton wins late deciders.

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 5:53 PM
10

@4, holy crap! That's so weird. Butterfly ballots again?

@1, Will, is there a reason that you repeat the same exact phrases in multiple slog posts? I've noticed it a lot recently.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:55 PM
11

apparently there are a number of voting machine problems, showing that it's not the chads, it's the voters in Florida.

either that or they've fixed the electronic votes so they can run against Sen Clinton

@10 - no, if they had pointed it out, I wouldn't have said that. spin is a delicate art of both science and pressure, applied with a quick flick of the wrist, and then a step to the right ...

and McCain is younger than most of the voters there, @6. i'm not joking.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 6:01 PM
12

OK, Gravel update. The NY Times seems to have caught on and has removed the Orange County results and put the totals back to 0% I think they may be doing a recount there.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 29, 2008 6:06 PM
13

@11 Seriously, look at cnn's exit polls...

44% of the republican vote and 40% of the democrat vote in Florida was by people over the age of 60.

Florida. Heavens waiting room.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 6:07 PM
14
Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 6:08 PM
15

@6
Do you not realize the gop idolizes Reagan? I think his picture in the dictionary under senile.

Posted by mickey in AR | January 29, 2008 6:08 PM
16

The voters probably walkered into the polling place for their half-hourly bathroom break and figured they might as well vote.

Posted by kinaidos | January 29, 2008 6:10 PM
17

CNN declares McCain the winner in FL.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 6:15 PM
18

@9 Look more closely at the exit poll results. Clinton only barely won the day-of deciders, not surprising given the unions she had doing GOTV for her down there and Barack did not.

People who decided in the past three days, past week or past month went for Obama by a significant margin. Hillary built up her lead from people who decided early and/or voted absentee(which started in December IIRC).

This bodes very well for Barack in the Feb 5 states, especially ones with fewer vote-by-mail voters.

Posted by ru shur | January 29, 2008 6:17 PM
19

Rudy Mussolini losing just made my day, bigtime!

Posted by Mr. X | January 29, 2008 6:18 PM
20

NPR just called it for McCain as well.

Buh-bye Rudy.

Posted by COMTE | January 29, 2008 6:21 PM
21

Rudy will endorse McCain tomorrow. I guess Huckabee will stay in it until Feb 6.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 6:27 PM
22

Lots of dead firefighters in Heaven are cheering tonight!

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 6:28 PM
23

Ooh, just heard Rudy's concession speech and he's sticking it out (until Super Tuesday at any rate). I guess, if you're going to get creamed - you might as well get REALLY creamed.

Funny, Robert Siegel just noted Rudy has been speaking a lot in the past-tense lately. Freudian?

Posted by COMTE | January 29, 2008 6:29 PM
24

...well, maybe if he sticks it out far enough someone will cut it off.

Posted by Mr. X | January 29, 2008 6:30 PM
25

Rudy says they are going after disenchanted voters of the splintering Democratic Party.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 6:32 PM
26

911. 911? 911, 911 911 911... 911. 911; 911 911911 911 911 911. 911!


...911!

Posted by Rudy G | January 29, 2008 6:33 PM
27

25 - that doesn't even make Republican-style sense. He's going to be talking about space creatures next. He's got that kind of look in his eyes.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 6:36 PM
28

25: Agree. Good ole Rudy. ...Romney sounds scary. Yikes!

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 6:39 PM
29

Correction on 28...comment meant for Ffnarf @ 27.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 6:43 PM
30

@18 - Dude.

People who decided in the past three days, past week or past month went for Obama by a significant margin.

In fact:

"Among all voters who made their decision in the last three days (including those who made their decision today), 37 percent went for Clinton and 34 percent went for Obama in early exit polls."

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 6:49 PM
31

I'd like to thank ... (ring) Yes, how's it going, nah, not doing much of anything ... pick up some strawberries and chocolate ... ok, hun (click) my opponents.

Posted by Rudy at his concession speech | January 29, 2008 6:50 PM
32

McCain's running mate will be either FL Gov Crist or SC Gov Sanford.

Posted by Fitz | January 29, 2008 6:51 PM
33

@30: Granted, but that's obviously because Clinton was telling her people their votes might count, and Obama and Edwards were sticking to their promises and not campaigning in the state.

Posted by annie | January 29, 2008 7:04 PM
34

All the seniors in Florida only voted for McCain because he's a senior too. This ageist crap isn't gonna help him very much next Tuesday.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 29, 2008 7:12 PM
35

I can't get that excited about Giuliani failing because I'm worried about McCain succeeding. I want the movement conservatives and right-wing radio blatherers to demand the Romney they so desperately deserve.

Posted by tsm | January 29, 2008 7:12 PM
36

You gotta admit, if these delegates become the subject of a floor fight at the convention, with the result in the balance, it will make for riveting TV. The tea-leaf reading you're doing now will pale in comparison.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 7:13 PM
37

Good news for Dems is that McCain is out of money. If he keeps winning, Hillary or Obama should trounce him. I'm happy to back either, and I think both are inspiring, especially compared to grandpa glassjaw or captain underpants.

Posted by Meinert | January 29, 2008 7:14 PM
38

Where was this whole McCain winning primaries thing 8 years ago? Seriously.

I'm going to daydream a bit now.

Posted by Julie | January 29, 2008 7:22 PM
39

#37 - Glad you feel that way. I will be voting for Sen. Obama or no one. I won't vote for 4 more years of dirty, win at all cost Clinton politics. Really, what did we get from the first Clinton administration, except for GW Bush? What long-lasting changes were made? How was our party grown or modernized? I'll be voting for Sen. Obama or I'll be re-registering as an Independent and the Democratic Party can have whatever it can get, but it won't get anything from me.

Posted by Ed | January 29, 2008 7:32 PM
40

@33 - I wasn't trying to make a point with the numbers, I was just sharing them because (first) I thought they were interesting and (second) because @18 was talking a bunch of nonsense and making up facts.

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 7:40 PM
41

(Not a McCain backer at all, comment meant in the spirit of political shenanigans): WHY does it come down to who has enough money to keep running? Does Bank of America have its evil stamp on everything?
Is the richest person supposed to win?

Posted by Tara | January 29, 2008 7:51 PM
42

@30 You can look at the exit poll numbers for yourself. They're on page 5. Clinton won people deciding *today* (likely because of Clinton/union GOTV operations) but lost everyone who decided yesterday through a month ago. The numbers are right there (and mutually exclusive).

Today- Clinton 34, Obama 30
Last three days - Clinton 38, Obama 46
Last Week - Clinton 31, Obama 39
Last month - clinton 40, Obama 47

They have some inclusive ranges too.
In last three days - Clinton 35, Obama 36
In last week - Clinton 34, Obama 37

I'm getting these straight off CNN's exit poll stats so I'm inclined to say the article you're citing transposed the numbers by accident.

Posted by ru shur | January 29, 2008 7:52 PM
43

@41 - haven't you been paying attention for the past 27 years?

Remember, God had his only son kick the beggars out of the Temple and befriend the moneylenders while the Pharisees were his best buds ...

Polls mean nothing when a lot of the voters are people who don't vote much. Hence the problems.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 8:00 PM
44

@40 CNN exit polls

Go to page 5. I await your apology.

Posted by ru shur | January 29, 2008 8:03 PM
45

#39 HUH, SAY WHAT

Funny, my memory might be failing, but did Bill and Hillary suspend haebeas corpus?

Or push a major war on all of us for the mongers and profiteers and fuck up half the world?

For what it is worth, you should vote against Bush/Cheney and the neo con agenda, still alive and well, period. Or you can eat your ballot in a snit and choke, causing massive scars thereby ruining your deep throat capacity for life.

Posted by Jean Paul | January 29, 2008 8:03 PM
46

Did anyone else catch Hillary's interview on MSNBC this evening? How she talked about the big victory for the voters of Florida and how those voters deserve to have their voices heard and how she agreed not to campaign but she didn't agree to not let the delegates be seated? As if there was anything for her to agree to on seating the delegates.

Gott in Himmel. I want to use words like gall or chutzpah, shameless or despicable, but those words fall short. No, it was Orwellian. That's the word. It was Orwellian the way she presented this attempt to corrupt the democratic process as a kind of righteous cause. It's the kind of talk I expect from Vladimir Putin, not a Democrat running for president of the United States of America.

I keep saying that if Hillary is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her. Even if the alternative is McCain. But for the love of God, fellow Democrats. Look at recent history…

We've had more than a generation of Republican presidential candidates who (A) had disturbingly deep ties to some ravenous corporate interests and (B) were willing to say anything and do anything to get elected. I don't care what her platform is—if history is any guide (and it is), a Hillary Clinton presidency will not turn out good for this country.

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2008 8:12 PM
47

Look, when you're not catching fire, and you know it, you do things like that, cressona.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 8:17 PM
48

@42 - Eh well, truce then. Looks like CNN's own political editor doesn't use CNN's exit polls or she used the numbers too early.

For what it's worth, according to the NYT, "Among late deciders, Mr. Obama matched her almost one for one, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky."

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 8:21 PM
49

Will in Seattle@22 wins.

cressona@46: the very thing that you dislike about Hillary- the fact that she will do absolutely anything to win- is why I like her so much. That's how I like my Democrats. Politics is funny.

(Note: except when they play the race card. Bad form, Bill. And by the way- and I can say this as a HRC supporter- get the fuck off the stage and away from the microphone, Bill.)

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 8:39 PM
50

Big Sven @49:

cressona@46: the very thing that you dislike about Hillary- the fact that she will do absolutely anything to win- is why I like her so much. That's how I like my Democrats. Politics is funny.

Here's the other half of my point, though. It's one thing to play dirty for a good cause, to be a ruthless champion for justice. But really, what will Hillary Clinton be a champion for?

Sure, in an HRC administation, we may hear a lot of bitter partisanship and a lot of righteous bluster to appease the base, but when nobody's looking, what will get done? How will the executive branch behave and what legislation will get past that veto pen?

There's a suspicion I just cannot shake that Hillary is someone who will talk a good liberal game, but then do the bidding of a narrow set of corporate interests.

Why else would she be the horse that Rupert Murdoch and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are betting on? Why else did she vote yes on that bankruptcy bill in 2005 that essentially stacked the deck in favor of the credit card companies and against consumers?

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2008 8:49 PM
51

I gotta agree with Cressona's post @50. But I will vote for her if forced. Clinton's admin was a hell of a lot better than any GOP admin in my memory.

Posted by Dianna | January 29, 2008 8:58 PM
52

It's mostly a question of whether I will donate as much as I can manage and volunteer and slap stickers on my car and generally see something worth devoting my energy to, or whether I will groan and vote against the Republican candidate in November.

I find it harder and harder to get excited about Hillary Clinton.

Posted by tsm | January 29, 2008 9:05 PM
53

cressona-

Clinton has a fine record in the Senate. Very similar to Obama's. Very, very, very similar to Obama's. I could do a tit-for-tat thing with Obama's record, but I'm not going to. 'Cause I like him, and I think that it's likely that if he's not our presidential candidate in the fall, then he'll be our vice-presidential one.

All the business classes are betting on her because (at least up until recently) she was the PRESUMED ENDORSEE in a race that Democrats are almost guaranteed to win. Business likes winners. If Dennis Kucinich had been the presumed endorsee in this race, he would have gotten big businesses vote.

Clinton has great marks from all the advocacy groups that I like, and she's a political Terminator, and I like that and you don't.

There. I made a point without saying anything negative about either Senator Obama or his SLOG supporter. Fnarf will be soooooooooo proud of me.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 9:07 PM
54

Big Dem Hugs all around!

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 9:21 PM
55

*Hands Big Sven a Corona Light*

Nice work.

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 9:21 PM
56

Big Sven, if you think those insurance companies and drug companies and Rupert aren't planning to see their investment in Hillary Clinton richly rewarded, then you're the one who's being naïve.

Anyone stop to consider what a sweet deal mandatory universe health insurance could be if the insurance companies had a hand in designing it?

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2008 9:30 PM
57

Since we're discussing Hillary's record, let's discuss her 35 years of experience, specifically the 6 years experience of throwing the Democratic party under the bus during the 90s when the going got tough.

Do we have any reason to trust she won't do it again to save her own ass? I'd have to characterize anyone who does as more than a little naïve and irresponsible.

Posted by ru shur | January 29, 2008 9:31 PM
58

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Florida debacle makes me upset at all the Democratic candidates. I feel very strongly that the party of enfranchisement should not be participating in the disenfranchisement of the American voters.

That said, given that Obama is the "hope" candidate, and the "anti-establishment" candidate, given that his whole message is about changing government and the way politics work, it's extremely disappointing that he agreed to go along with the DNC's asinine plan to unseat the delegates. As the candidate who wants to change government, the onus was actually on him to say, "You know what DNC, fuck you. No, I will not refuse to campaign in Florida. No I will not participate in the disenfranchisement of millions of Florida Democrats."

That he didn't do that, suggests to me that like Clinton, Obama is at base, a politician. Who is willing to cave, and willing to appease.

Given they're both flawed politicans who are willing to cave to special interests (in this case the special interests of the DNC who favor NH and Iowa voters ABOVE all) then I cast my vote for the candidate who never fails to take my breath away with her sheer intelligence.

I vote for Clinton.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 9:45 PM
59

I would much rather have Hillary as Senate Leader than Harry Reid.

It's worth noting that even though Hillary's claim of a Florida "victory" was cynical and opportunistic photo op, 100K more Floridians showed up to cast a meaningless, delegateless ballot for Hillary than John McCain had show up to vote for him. With not a dime spent in the state, Obama got more votes than Romney, who spent another fuckton of his kids' inheritance. Edwards nearly got as many votes as poor Rudy...

Posted by No One Special | January 29, 2008 9:58 PM
60

Arduous @58. You make a compelling case on Clinton's behalf. Have you ever considered a career in law? You know, like representing a burglar in a civil suit against the homeowner whose home he was injured in while breaking in?

Anyway, I commend you for deciding to grace this humble forum so recently just to share your enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton.

And I commend Hillary Clinton for her genuine concern for the disenfranchised voters of Florida. I'm sure, as well all are, that if Barack Obama had picked up the bulk of those votes, she would still be calling for the delegates to be counted. How do I know? Because that's just the kind of person she is.

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2008 9:59 PM
61

I'm sure that if Senator Obama had won the FL primary, many, many, many Stranger staffers and SLOG commentators would have been justifiably proud and would have shared their pride with the entire SLOG community in a long series of posts and comments.

Two for two! Two for two!

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 10:16 PM
62

@60, I didn't argue that Hillary Clinton did or didn't care about Florida voters. What I did argue is that every Democratic candidate SHOULD have cared. Especially Barack Obama.

And, side note to Fnarf if he's reading this, I read your notes about letting attacks like "fucktard" slide, and I get it.

But it's a little frustrating to make what I think is a fair point, and get this, "Have you ever considered a career in law? You know, like representing a burglar in a civil suit against the homeowner whose home he was injured in while breaking in."

When I'm being attacked so personally, for simply making an argument, it's really hard to just let it go.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 10:35 PM
63

As I have said since 2006, McCain will be the nominee and Rudy will be his VP. Done. And if you think that is an easy ticket to beat, you guys are in for fucking disappointment.

Be warned, the GOP can and will rally to their candidate. Senile or not. And fuck, Bush got elected in 2004, so I have no hope for the average American.

Posted by Original Monique | January 29, 2008 10:38 PM
64

Clinton was also on NPR's special election coverage this evening. Most of it was standard patter. But when Robert Siegel asked her about the role that Bill is playing in the campaign things shifted. She was saying that she was responsible for her campaign and was sorry if Bill had said anything that offended anyone.

Then she said "when WE'RE president..." Thankfully, Siegel caught this and immediately pounced, saying when say things like "when we're president" that's what a lot of people are reacting to, this idea of a co-presidency. Clinton promptly stressed that she would be her own president.

Posted by gnossos | January 29, 2008 10:38 PM
65

@39:

A little satirical reposte, if you don't mind:

(From "Monty Python's Life Of Brian"):

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Attendee: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!

Posted by COMTE | January 29, 2008 11:33 PM
66

Original monique, I find your soothsaying abilities frightening, in that they seem so viable. 2004 was the year when all my non-voter friends registered for the first time and voted democrat out of loathing for Bush...and he still won! I take nothing for granted. The dems have an amazing capacity for screwing the pooch. What scary times we live in.

Posted by Marko Constans | January 30, 2008 7:54 AM
67

@ 63 Original Monique is spot on in her assessment.

Many of you here rely on the fact that all 25 of you are in agreement that "the Democrats will surely win... won't they?"

If HRC is the candidate it is sure defeat for Democrats. Then we'll see the real hand wringing begin from all these "wise" soothsayers on this board.

Mark my words. I'll gurantee that if the Ticket is McCain/Rudy it will be a landslide win if they are up against Clinton/"Insert crony here"

The rest of the country has a vile puke taste in their mouth when they hear the word "Hillary"

All of you here are highly insulated to this perception and the levels of revulsion.

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | January 30, 2008 12:08 PM
68

Reality Check-

Congratulations on successfully regurgitating the latest Obama campaign talking point. What a shame it's wrong (to well within the margin of error.)

Hillary's not divisive just because you say she is. We have a tough road ahead of us if McCain is the nominee, whoever the Dem candidate. But Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would be way, way better than any of the other options.

Posted by Big Sven | January 30, 2008 1:31 PM
69

ps- Here's the link showing that Reality Check is just parroting the latest campaign meme. (Damned spam filter wouldn't let me post with two links, WTF?)

Posted by Big Sven | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).