Another day of election results has come and gone with no clear front runner emerging on either side of the race for president. On the Republican side of the race, Mitt Romney scored a win in Saturday's caucus in Nevada. But also on Saturday, Romney took fourth place in South Carolina's Republican presidential primary, where John McCain chalked up a key victory. Hillary Clinton narrowly beat out Barack Obama in Nevada's Democratic caucus. But Obama won more of the state's official party delegates by winning in key, delegate rich areas.
Pundits had been predicting a close race between the three Democratic frontrunners in Nevada. A poll released early last week by the Marylandbased Research 2000 had shown the race in a dead heat between Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama. But Edwards came in a distant third on Saturday.
Â
After the results in Nevada, Edwards emphasized that he would continue campaigning. Edwards is hoping for a strong showing in his home state of South Carolina, which will hold its Democratic primary next Saturday. That could provide his campaign with some much needed momentum going into February 5th's Super Tuesday round of voting.
"The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we're committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard. The nomination won't be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we're ready to fight for every delegate. Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that's a fight John Edwardsis ready for," read a statement issued by the Edwards campaign after the loss in Nevada.
Clinton and Obama each sought to chalk Nevada up as a victory. The following graphic was featured on the front page of Obama'scampaign website:
The Clinton campaign responded by posting the following statement on its website:
"Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake. The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19."
Ron Paul was able to edge out John McCain for surprising second place finish in Nevada. And Congressman Duncan Hunter announced he would end his bid for the presidency after finishing in last place in both Nevada and SouthCarolina.
The Republican race in South Carolina came down to a close competition between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. With 97 percent of precincts reporting, McCain had reportedly received 143,222 votes - or 33 percent of the vote. Huckabee had won 128,908 votes - or 30 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson came in third place at 16 percent, and Romney in fourthat 15 percent. Ron Paul, Rudy Guiliani, and Duncan Hunter each finished with less than 5 percent of the vote.
What do you think of the Saturday's election results?
Do you think a clear front-runner has emerged on either sideof the race?
Why has this primary been so competitive?
Why have polls been so far off the mark in predicting election outcomes so far?
Who do you want to see win?
Â
Â
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of his correspondent articles by clicking here.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 56
I think it has been so competive due to Clinton being a woman , and Obama being a black man. This is History ...
The only think I can think of for the poles being so far off, is maybe, people are changing their minds at the last minute.
I dont want either one of these candidates to win the presidential elections. I think it is a big mistake to vote Hillary into office. 8 years of her and her husband was enough for me. I dont know at this point who I would vote for.
I think the only real candidate they have is John McCain, the rest are either lacking in character, proffering old or fantasy visions of what America should be, or too inexperienced, or just faces and symbols trying to revive the old Ronald Reagan BS. I detest most of the Republican candidates, I can stand it if John McCain was the winner. I also included Ron Paul, who with all this subterfuge about Libertarianism and trying to be different and so down to Earth does what all the Libertarian candidates do, which is to hide just how major and how disasterous for almost all Americans Libertarianism would be. A ticket of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich merely tells me that Dennis Kucinish is so ambitious that he does not care how he takes power.
Democrats:
On the Democrat side things are shaping up fairly. I can handle the victory of any of the big three, but I prefer Clinton, Edwards and Obama in that order. I think Clinton has the name recognition, she has the emotive response behind her. Obama may have the intellectuals, but the intellectuals as blind to his inexperience, and his effects on the other side. Edwards is less threatening to people than Obama, and maybe about the same in terms of experience. Clinton will take office with a mandate if she wins, and not be stifled again by the Republican machine, in other words I see Clinton as being able to stand up to stress better, after all she remains standing tall after more than 16 years of the most vicious and underhanded Republican attacks. I think that will make her more able to invoke the people to counter Republican sidetracking of her administration.
I think Senator Obama is better served going back to the Senate and improving his resume.
No, I don't think there is any clear front runner in either party.
I don't believe it. They will fight and bicker, but when the nominee is chosen, most of the Republicans will vote for the Republican guy and Dems for the Dem guy.
The independents...and there are more of them than in past elections I think...will decide who is elected. I'm betting most of them will go with the Democrat. There is a lot of disgust with Republicans right now, thanks to Dubya and his boys.
Ron, you have got to be kidding? That is the unbalanced point of view I hear from many Obama supporters, who I think are Republican plants, that if they cannot have Obama, they will not vote. Well, I'll tell you, if Obama does not get the nomination he would tell you to support Clinton, and vice-versa, so if you are not willing to support Clinton under those circumstances, don't say you are supporting anyone, except the Republicans.
McCain may not be perfect, but he is reliable, stable, moderate, and has a lot of character and integrity. He can take a lot of pressure and not crack, I think.
Clinton V. McCain may not be the most exciting or different ticket, but we need something familiar that we can trust as all Americans right now. Something has got to stop the acrimony between the parties, and hunt down and kill "whatever" it is that is causing it ... and both McCain and Clinton have been wounded by this divisive mud-slinging machine, as has the whole country.
I still think Hillary will be the Democrat, If McCain is the Republican, it's going to be one hell of a race! McCain is undoubtedly the strongest Republican candidate!
I'd readily acknowledge that lost of things can change after super Tuesday, on both sides of the isle. And I'd be reluctant to declare Mitt, Guilliani, Obama or Edwards as dead in the water until then.
Hillary are troll comments from Republicans pretending to be
Democrats, or pretending to care about the American people.
I think people are tired of the doctinaire Republicans, certainly
if they expect any swing voter support.
Edwards has the most chance of any of them, but I think he is
not going to get it. Obama and Edwards talk the best and say
the sweet nothings, but I'd like to see a woman president, and
I respect Clinton for her stick-to-it-iveness and her age and
experience.
I think McCain and Hillary are the front runners, but it's still early!
All I know now is I don't want any more years of a repuglie in the White House. My pocket book won't take it. The gas prices are eating me out of house and home. What I used to spend on food, medicine, etc., now goes into the gas tank of my car.
McCain to me seems to have the edge for the Republicans. I wish it were one of the others because I think they are all easier to beat, and I do not desire another Republican president.
Notification cards for Democrats arrived two days before the caucus itself. For Republicans it was five days. Many people didn't turn out because of the late notification.
People who hadn't followed political news had no idea that we were having a caucus instead of a primary. Many participants didn't know the difference before they showed up at the caucus site. At some sites, participants grew angry when they discovered it wasn't a primary.
The people at our caucus locations who understood the caucus process were either political activists, or highly interested in the political process. Not exactly a true representation of voter interests. I think a true primary would have shown different Democratic results.
You seem to be intent on doing other's thinking for them, Bruce, but you don't speak for anyone but yourself. I did not say I wouldn't vote in that event, but it would sure blur the difference between the Democrat and the Republican candidate. I would like to see change, especially in regard to ridding our government of the undue influence of lobbyists and Special interests. I believe that is the single most important issue in regard to returning our government to citizn control. If Clinton is the candidate, nothing will get done about that, she is in it up to her neck. Period. Unfortunately, that experience she's always touting is experience at working that system to her advantage. She sucks.
That is, of course, a matter of opinion. We desperately need some fundamental campaign reform in this country, and the only guy running who has ever tried to do that is John McCain...and he has too many other views that I don't agree with...like anti-women's choice and pro Iraq War.
So...even though neither Clinton nor Obama...both of whom have taken big-time money from Corporate America...will be a big election reformist, I have to go with whichever of them ends up being the nominee...because NONE of the others are electable or acceptable. It comes down to that.
Polls can only capture the way that people feel at the time they were surveyed. In a competitive race like this one, voters change their minds. Voters seem to be making up their minds at the last moment.
Articles in a news letter published by Paul, which he later claimed he had not written but took moral responsibility for, made racist claims like, "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." Another article suggested that the Los Angeles Riots over the police beating of Rodney King only ended because the riotor's had to stop so they could go and cash their welfare checks.
And then there is Mike Huckabee, a guy who thinks our constitution should be based on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. Wow, when Tom Brokaw called the Republican presidential candidate race a "wrecking derby" (I believe he meant demolition derby), he wasn't kidding.
The Clinton win in Nevada simply proves those folks out there must have been exposed to too much radiation fallout.
I think in the end it will be Hillary vs. Romney. I only hope the people of this Country remember what the Republican party has done to this country for the last 8 years!
Chip - One has to wonder why Nevada chose to go with a caucus over its usual primary this time around. It is sort of an antiquated system.
I don't believe that the persons in Nevada are any less informed that persons in Arizona. Most persons, nationwide, are not necessarily all that well informed at this point in the process and most won't be on election day. They vote emotions and liking rather than objective logical judgment! Always been that way and will continue to be.
The support for Ron Paul, is mostly a case of "I wish" rather than believing that he has the answers. Libertarianism would not work in a nation of three hundred million people in today's technological age.
My own feeling is that if either party want to field an internal candidate without influence from outsiders to the party, that should be their business and their expense. No part of such a primary of caucus should be born by the taxpayers, and that what is paid by the taxpayers should be open to any citizen. Most of caucus expense is born by the parties but the frequently hold them in schools, etc. which are taxpayer supported.
One would think that Edwards would be benefitting from all this, but, he is not. Even though he's the best candidate the Democrats have IMO. Bigots won't decide these elections...money will or vested interest.
Given the choice...I would much prefer...whatever color the Latter Day Saints prefer. Yet, if Hillary's rival should be McCain(a clone of Bobby Knight) or Giuliani(a clone of Benito Mussolini) hand be a bucket and a brush...pink it is!
Every elections in my life has been decided by the electoral college (with the help of the supreme court in 2000) and there is nothing in the works to change that. I believe that college is an anachronism that has served it's time and purpose. It should be abolished but will not until the people of this country make it clear to their elected representatives that they demand the change!
Even if there was a scintilla of truth behind your rantings it could hardly be as bad as the "thieving incompetent self-righteous a-hole liar" state even if taken the 10th power.