It is a bit premature to say anything conclusive about “Super Tuesday” but I couldn’t help noticing that the New York Times sees trouble brewing for the Democrats:
The Republican and Democratic presidential contests began diverging Tuesday, leaving the Democrats facing a long and potentially divisive nomination battle and Republicans closer to an opportunity to put aside deep internal divisions and rally around a nominee.
On the other side of the pond, the Guardian thinks the Republicans are in deep, deep troubles:
The Republicans are potentially facing a period of turbulence reminiscent of the prolonged soul-searching the Democrats went through during the 1980s. It was precisely the powerful coalition of conservative forces put together by Ronald Reagan in those years that has now started to become unstuck.
Okay, I’m exaggerating just a little bit but the difference in angles is kind of interesting.
Meanwhile Matthew Shugart is annoyed by some of the reporting:
NPR, to its credit, is telling its listeners to focus on the delegate count and not who “wins” states. Less to its credit – but typical – is the going on and on about how “complex” the “proportional” rules are. Worse still are the claims that these rules mean the delegates may not track the “popular vote,” as if the popular vote were more respected when a candidate with a narrow margin gets 100% of the delegates than when candidates get shares of the delegates approximating their shares of the vote.
Well, it seems that media have a tendency to confuse the rules applied in the primaries with the rules applied in the general election.
Oh, and among the US bloggers I follow, Daniel Drezner went for … tadaa! … John McCain while Brad deLong voted Obama. My hunch is that Paul Krugman backed Hillary Clinton (I have this feeling that he’s not an Obamaman). Laura McKenna, on the other hand, confesses that she is an Obama-girl. Matthew Shugart? Well, either he’s older than I thought or else…