As weve watched the results roll in on each election night during this primary season, most of us have focused on the number of votes and delegates that the candidates receive. Little attention has been paid to how many votes are being cast by each of the parties.

The headlines generally mentioning high voter turnout hardly tell the story: Democratic voters are turning out in astonishing numbers.

It began in Iowa, the Democratic caucuses had record turnout, with 239,000 attendees - a 93 percent increase over the 2004. The Republican caucuses drew 115,000 voters. Third place finisher Hillary Clinton garnered more than 73,000 votes, nearly doubling the 38,000 votes that went to Republican winner Mike Huckabee. George W. Bush won the state in 2004

In New Hampshire, a state that went for Bush in 2000, Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 286,000 to 234,000.

Then came South Carolina, where the Democratic Party shattered its all-time turnout record for a presidential primary and easily surpassed the number of ballots cast by Republicans in their primary a week earlier. In 2004, Bush beat John Kerry 58% - 40.9% in this perpetually red state. GOP officials, at a loss to explain this years numbers, blamed the weather. It was cold, and wet.

That cold front must have covered the entire nation on Super Tuesday.

S.W. Anderson over at Oh!pinion reports, beginning with numbers from Time magazine cited by Air Americas Rachel Maddow on MSNBC:

"In the states where both parties held primaries, total Democratic turnout was a staggering 73 percent greater than total Republican participation.

"In actual numbers, that translates to Democrats voting 14.5 million strong, while only 8.4 million Republicans took part.

"Maddow told how huge numbers showed up to vote Democratic in red-state Kansas, many waiting for as long as two hours lined up outdoors in rain and snow. In Boise election workers had 9,000 ballots ready €” many more than in 2000. But they still had to go out twice to get more printed, 5,000 more in all.

"What this indicates is a strong possibility of Republicans being swamped, stomped and left for dead in next Novembers general election €” an outcome richly deserved and long overdue."

All of this turnout data would certainly suggest the possibility of a Democratic landslide this November. But there are two scenarios that I can imagine that could turn the numbers upside down and actually result in a Republican victory.

One. Hillary Clinton is anointed the Democratic nominee by the super delegates, overriding the votes of the people. Enraged Obama supporters stay home in droves; the Democratic turnout advantage evaporates into a cloud of cynicism and despair. At the same time, Hillarys presence on the ticket energizes GOP turnout.

Two. Terror - not the economy - is the number one issue in the campaign, and Americans are still afraid. Relatively good news continues to dribble out of Iraq and the GOP is successful in selling the notion that victory is still possible, and that the Democratic nominees plans for withdrawal amount to surrender and defeat.

Neither of these scenarios seems so far-fetched. If BOTH were to play out, there is little doubt in my mind that the GOP would win the White House.

Democratic and Republican party officials have to be looking at these historical turnout numbers with a mixture of hope and fear. But they know its a long time until November and a lot could change.

Theres a lot of confusion about the so-called super delegates who now seem to be the deciders on who will become the Democratic Partys presidential nominee. Lets start with the name whats correct? Super delegate? Or is it hyphenated: Super-delegate? Or one word: Superdelegate. After several hours of research I still cant give you an authoritative answer. But I can tell you something about them.

First, a little history. 1972 - Anti-war candidate George McGovern secures the Democratic nomination and is trounced by Richard Nixon in the general election, winning exactly one state and just 37.5% percent of the popular vote. Four years later, after McGoverns humiliating defeat, the party nominates dark-horse candidate Jimmy Carter, a one-term Governor from Georgia with no national or international experience. Though Carter defeats Gerald Ford to win the White House that November, four years later he fails to win reelection. Ronald Reagan buries him, and the Democratic Party, in a landslide winning 91% of the electoral vote. Carter wins only six states and the District of Columbia.

After these resounding defeats in 1972 and 1980, the Democratic Party elders decide that some sort of fail-safe system was needed to prevent ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates from becoming the partys standard bearer in the future.

Cody Noren, writing at the American Chronicle, picks up the story:

"In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes."

Until possibly this year.

So who are these 796 suddenly super powerful people? Heres a summary from a new website, SuperDelegates.Org.

They include:
4 former Presidents and Vice-Presidents
30 Democratic Governors
51 Current Democratic Senators, 2 former Senators
226 Current Democratic Congressmen, 2 former Speakers of the House
485 Members of the Democratic National Committee ( and others)

You can see which of these super delegates are committed (and to whom), and those who remain uncommitted at SuperDelegate.org, or at the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog.

Are you at least a little nervous about taking the selection process out of the hands of the voters? You can bet I am! I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that these people were elected. I mean, Democratic voters did put most of them into their current or past offices. Even the DNC members were elected (though not by public voting, but by dedicated Democrat Party officials).

Remember how disenfranchised Democratic voters felt after the 2000 election? Or just think how the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida are feeling right now. Then think about... no, I don't want to go there (just yet). Guess wed better learn more about the super delegates and just get comfortable with the reality of the situation.

Most voters thought that Super Tuesday would be the de facto culminating event of the primary season, crowning clear a victor in each party. Republicans werent disappointed. But Democrats saw their overall contest end in a tie.

What happened? Well, each of the parties plays by their own set of rules. The Republican Party favors a Winner-Take-All approach, while the Democrats believe Every-Vote-Counts. (It occurs to me that even though Im referring here to their primary rules, these philosophies are widely applied and evident in most of their political thinking.)

John McCain all but wrapped up the GOP nomination. Its hard to see how he can be defeated at this point. If I were one of Mitt Romneys kids, Id be hoping that Dad would come to his senses, put away the checkbook, and stop spending my inheritance. Mike Huckabee has been an over-achiever, but ultimately poses no threat to McCain. Super Tuesday simultaneously knocked Mitt and Mike out of the game.

On the Democratic side, yesterday was kind of like watching a Super Bowl game that somehow ended in a tie. After watching all of the regular season games, and playoffs game, you settled into the couch and watched the big game and it ended in a tie. No way! Most unsatisfying.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are just going to have to catch their breath, buckle their chin straps, and keep on knocking heads. The game is far from over.

While neither candidate can claim victory yesterday Democratic voters can. Under the Democratic rules of proportional representation, every single vote that was cast counted. If you were a Hillary supporter in Illinois, you helped her gain 44 delegates, even though your candidate lost the state in a landslide, 65% - 33%. If you liked Obama and lived in Arkansas, you knew that he couldnt possibly win the state, but by going to the polls and voting anyway you helped him secure 7 delegates. And in this race, every single delegate is going to matter.

Another surprise winner yesterday was the group of states that havent had their primaries yet. Initially they probably thought they were losers by not moving up their primary dates like everyone else. Now theyre sitting pretty, and are going to receive far more attention than they would have had they lumped themselves into Super Tuesday. Next up, in the spotlight, the caucus states of Washington. Nebraska and Maine. Then its on to the Potomac Primaries next Tuesday (D.C., Maryland and Virginia), then two weeks later its Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island. All of these states were big winners yesterday.

Can you imagine how exciting the general elections would be if we ever abandoned the Winner-Take-All rules of the Electoral College and went to a simple Every-Vote-Counts?

Youve probably heard something about "super delegates" in the Democratic Partys nomination process. You might know, for example, that they are basically the luminaries of the party, past and present party officials, members of Congress, governors, former vice president Al Gore, former president Jimmy Carter, and yes, even Bill Clinton. They all get to vote at the convention, just like the delegates that are being determined in the primary elections.

This morning, just before heading out to vote, I learned that these super delegates amount to 40% of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. That struck me as an incredibly high, so I decided to do a little research and from what I read given our proportional delegate system, unless either Obama or Clinton drops out before the convention, there is simply no way that the nominee can be determined without the super delegates.

Lets hope that tonights results are conclusive enough that this scenario doesnt play out. Its almost unimaginable that we could go through all of these primaries, and the ones to come, and still have the nomination in doubt.

But then Im old enough to remember sitting at home watching the conventions on TV with my parents, not knowing who was going to win. I can recall the drama and suspense of the state by state roll call votes. Maybe thats where the Democrats are headed this year. How exciting would that be?

Still, the thought of all these super delegates - who were not selected by the voters - having all this power makes me a little nervous. What a fiasco if they were to ignore the voices of the majority of primary voters and caucus participants and cast their votes based on old loyalties or a sense of patronage.

When I went to the poll this morning at my local middle school, it never occurred to me that anyone but the voters would be selecting our partys nominee. Even after reading about all of this, Ill continue to trust that will be the case.

Im glad the debates are over; nothings going to change my mind. Like most Democrats Ive definitely decided on who Im going to vote for on Tuesday. Perhaps you have as well. But for the few remaining undecideds out there, Id like to share the reasons why Im going vote for Barack Obama.

Its not as easy a decision as everyone makes it out to be. Obama is not perfect, and Hillary isnt fatally flawed. Both candidates have pluses and minuses. Obama does lack experience, and is untested. And while Hillarys thirty-five years thing is certainly resume padding, she is clearly more experienced and battle-tested. But her experience didnt prevent her from casting a number of horrible votes.

And thats where Hillary lost me on her votes: on the war resolutions for Iraq, and Iran. I believe that when she voted to grant Bush the power to invade Iraq, she didnt make the mistake shes now claiming. It was a deliberate, political calculation, rooted in her future plans to run for the White House. I recall that at the time she even advised John Kerry to do the same thing, for the same reason, telling him that voting no would have consequences and would hurt his chances. At least John Kerry had the courage to vote his conviction.

But even if we give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on her Iraq vote, shes since done the exact same thing by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, supporting the notion of war with Iran. On this single issue war she loses my vote. Not because Obama was against the war in Iraq though I admire that but because she voted for the use of force against Iran. It isn't that she voted for the Iraq war, or that she still refuses for apologize for that vote her vote on Iran clearly demonstrates that her presidential ambitions trump any moral considerations.

Still, as I read the comments posted on the different blogs I browse every day, theres a legion of dedicated Hillary Clinton followers out there supporting her candidacy. They see things differently, including this issue of her war votes.

I can respect that. What worries me is that some Democrats dont.

For some time now my own daughter, a precinct captain for Obama in Iowa, has been saying she doesnt think shell vote for Hillary if she wins it. Every time I respond, No. You Will! Ive done everything but threaten to disown her. Surely I raised her better than that!

Then as the Billary act started to unfold in the run-up to the South Carolina primary I started to wonder myself. Ive always supported the Clintons, even through the impeachment, and yet I found myself so angry that I was considering the unthinkable.

There is no doubt that a Clinton candidacy would dramatically boost Republican turnout in the general election. Now do we also have to factor in how she could depress the Democratic turnout?

Thats the other big negative in having Hillary Clinton as the nominee: electability.

McCain vs. Clinton? Too close to call. Imagine that. After eights years of George W. Bush and the sorry state we find ourselves in, a Republican could still be elected to the White House. Thats unfathomable to me.

Id much rather take my chances on McCain vs. Obama. The differences are sharp and clear. Warmonger vs. voted-against-the-war. Politics as usual vs. the politics of hope. Old vs. young. The past vs. the future. Just close your eyes for a moment, and picture the two of them together, standing on the stage before the first debate. No contest.

More than anything, I want to win in November. Nothing is more important than getting the control of this country out of the hands of the Republican Party. I believe Barack Obama gives us the best hope of doing that. Hillary might be able to win in a squeaker, but Obama would win with coattails that would create the absolute majorities needed to defeat obstruction in the Congress.

Ill vote for Hillary if shes our nominee, but I sure think we stand a better chance with Barack. A Democratic victory in November is not a given.

Who were the losers last night in last night's Democratic debate? There were two.

CNN once again demonstrated that they cannot do a decent job of running a debate. Twice while we were all off watching commercials, the debate resumed without waiting for the TV audience to return. And the producers obviously knew they were doing it. As we grumbled, complaining aloud, shocked to see the candidates in the middle of a response, the question that had been asked was displayed across the bottom of the screen. The other major failing of the night was the lack of directed discussion about the number one issue: the economy.

More importantly, I think Bill Richardson may have lost the number two spot on the ticket. It was looking like the New Mexico Governor was a shoo-in for VP, regardless of who won the nomination. Obama needs help with the Hispanic vote, and Hillary needs to be certain that he doesnt get it from their former rival. While Im sure Senator Evan Bayh (D-In) thinks that hes earned the slot, Hillary had to be contemplating a way to lock up Richardsons support.

When I read this yesterday at The Anonymous Liberal blog, my brain exploded. Wow! What a great thought!

"If ever there was a time when an key endorsement could make a difference in a presidential race, its now. My sense is that Obama just needs a little bit of a bump to pull even with Clinton in the Super Tuesday contests. And theres one major endorsement still out there. Al Gore. Gore is the one person who is respected enough in Democratic circles to tip the scale in one direction or the other. If he endorsed Obama this week, it just might make the difference."

-The Anonymous Liberal, A Few Thoughts On The Elections, January 29, 2008

Move over James Carville and Paul Begala. This is how to Take It Back.

We start with Kennedy familys bold endorsement. Their political courage has energized my support for Obama, and quite frankly lifted my sagging spirits and renewed my hope, as the cold reality is that the odds greatly favor Hillary Clinton winning the nomination.

Im so encouraged by the Kenndy endorsement that when the inevitable email came from Teddy asking for a contribution to the Obama campaign, I stepped up.

And I dont believe in donating money for one Democrat to use to bash another. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see all of my hard-earned cash to go to trashing and defeating Republicans. But this is different we cannot have Hillary Clinton (and Bill) heading up the ticket this November. So nows the time to do whatever we can do to see that Obamas our candidate.

The next step? What could possibly have a greater impact than Al Gore coming out for Barack Obama?

A lot of people spent a great deal of time and energy trying to convince Gore to run for President. Can we get them to resurrect their campaign, but change its focus to getting Mr. Gore to endorse Obamas candidcacy? We dont have much time. Thats why I wrote this piece today. We need to publicize this idea and see if we cant help make it happen. Bloggers, lets go! Can someone post contact information for an email campaign?

Can we get Al Gore to endorse Barack Obama? I dont know. But dreaming about what is possible is part of what the Obama campaign is all about.

I have to keep reminding myself: it was a Republican primary. Still, I cant for the life of me understand how a warmonger managed to win yesterdays crucial presidential primary election in Florida.

Youd think that after John McCain had gone on record (back in New Hampshire) saying that keeping U.S troops in Iraq for a hundred years was just fine with him, most people would have to step back and think long and hard about voting for him. But no, GOP voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina, either overlooked the statement or had no problem with it.

Then last Sunday, the tireless campaigner topped his "100 years" shocker, telling a crowd of supporters in Florida: "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars." He all but promised a war with Iran.

How did Floridians respond? No problemo! McCain edges out Mitt Romney and is now clearly the front-runner on a fast track to winning the nomination.

"McCain's people try to sell him as the GOP field's reigning grown up. And when it comes to issues like pork barrel spending, immigration, and stem cell research, he is. But on the most important matter a president can face -- questions of war and peace -- he carries himself like a cocksure teenage bully, itching for the next fight.

"After insisting that future wars are just around the corner, McCain launched into a creepy riff in which the suffering of our soldiers seemed to leave him almost breathless with anticipation: "We're going to have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends. We're gonna have a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds. And, my friends, it's gonna be tough, we're gonna have a lot to do.""

-Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post, January 29, 2008

It appears from the exit polls that John McCain can thank the Hispanic community for his victory. He received 50% of the Cuban vote; Romney only 10%. Non-Cuban Hispanics went 51% for McCain versus 21% for Romney. Chuck Todd, Political Director of NBC News, appearing on MSNBCs Morning Joe program this morning cited this as probably being the deciding factor.

I dont mention this in an effort to diminish McCains victory, attempting to use a variant on the despicable tactic that Bill Clinton tried in South Carolina against Barack Obama. I just find this very interesting because it could be argued that McCain had earned the Hispanic vote with his courageous position on immigration. I enjoy seeing poetic justice being served up. Its ironic that his stand on immigration, that almost buried his candidacy months ago, now comes back to save him.

Given the way that the leadership of the Republican Party treats the idea of immigration reform, and their thinly veiled disdain for illegal immigrants, it was perhaps surprising, but certainly satisfying to see this result. Clearly the Hispanics voted for the man, and not the party.

And maybe this means that the people of Florida werent voting to continue Bushs policy of never-ending war. Though if there is one presidential candidate out there who looks like he would pick up right where Bush will leave off, its McCain.

Despite his age, John McCain is like the Energizer Bunny - he keeps banging the war drum - and just keeps going, and going, and...

I know it was Republican primary. Still, I cant believe that this is what most Americans really want to see in our next President.

Thomas Jefferson fulfilled the State of the Union obligation by sending written text to the Congress that was read aloud by a clerk. This was actually the common practice until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson went back to personally delivering the address, as George Washington had done at the beginning of the Republic. Last night George Bush mailed it in.

As I watched the President last night it struck me that he could have assembled a montage of old video clips from his previous State of The Union addresses and stayed home. It was absolutely the very last thing I expected. Given his record, how could he possibly turn the speech into a retrospective of the failures of his leadership, and dish out the same old warmed-over rhetoric?

Are his new advisers that out of touch with reality? What nation was he talking about? The one that was obsessed with national security? Or the one thats now worried sick about healthcare and the economy. His speech was about our concerns of three years ago. Homes and jobs are being lost Islamofascism is not whats currently causing us to lose sleep at night.

I was prepared to write about the speech and discuss the merits the Presidents proposals and vision. But there was nothing new offered, and nothing newsworthy. I mean, his remarks about his legacies wanting to make the tax cuts permanent, and selling the progress in the war in Iraq - have all been heard before. In fact we hear them almost daily. And were tired of hearing them.

It was a most disappointing political performance. Watching the pre-programmed robo-representatives play jack-in-the-box, popping up to applaud, or sinking back into their seats, provided a vivid snapshot of the state of our government. We need a President and a national agenda we can all be proud of.

We really didnt need George Bush to tell us the state of the union; everywhere we turn we see the residue of the Republic.

America is broken. We all know it. The only people who argue otherwise are either super-rich, hyper partisan, or woefully uninformed.

We know this to be true, yet many people wont admit it aloud, mostly for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Thats another sad legacy the repugnant practice of making out legitimate dissent to be unpatriotic. Someone dares to disagree and there are shouts of America love it, or leave it! Dont like our healthcare? Move to Canada! You want welfare? Move to Europe.

We must stop this! We have got to abandon the poisonous partisanship that is largely responsible for the sorry state we find ourselves in. We all know that the country is moving in the wrong direction - the polls consistently bear that out. Perhaps thats why the message of change is so resonant this campaign season.