What Happens Next?

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

What's over yonder campaign horizon?

hide captionWhat's over yonder campaign horizon?

Source: apotheker

Now that Super Tuesday is over, we're looking forward. You've read about the returns, heard from the pundits and pollsters, and counted the delegates. Good. Now help us figure out what's next.

In the second hour, we'll check in with advisers, campaign chairmen, and strategists. Is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., unstoppable? How will former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee appeal to voters outside of the Bible Belt? Can former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recover? And will the cordial competition between Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., continue?

What would you like to see your candidate do from here on out? Do you have questions about campaign strategy? What issues would you like to see highlighted or debated? Who doesn't stand a chance?

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

We need not repeat history: the black man got the vote before women (who worked for their freedom.)

I think Obama will make a wonderful president.....in 8 years after he has more experience....specifically as the VP.
So, I voted for Clinton, whom I trust to make certain we all get health care insurance. I also believe she'll choose him as a running mate.

Sent by Cynthia Gran | 2:39 PM | 2-6-2008

I would like to know who will be in the future cabinet. Will they be pay back cronies, as in the past,or will the president tap the vast resource of intelligence and brilliant minds?

Sent by Wayne Edwards | 2:55 PM | 2-6-2008

I'm an Asian American and I will not vote for Obama. I'm so an independent. My vote will be for Hillary Clinton. My decision is base on what I have seen what this country become with an inexperience person in charge. I don't want to see it get any worst. Bush and his clan ran this country to the ground. Obama may be a great speaker and it ends there. He hasn't prove to me that he can accept situations and make a decision to resolve it. Being present in Congress doesn't count for nothing more than taking up space from a person that can make decision. This country is up for a change but don't make a change base on race. Obama claims to stand for change, but when time came to make a change, he marks himself as just being present and allow the chance to make a change. If things to out that the final race will be between Obama vs McCain, I will vote for McCain. I'm also a veteran.

Sent by damein | 3:18 PM | 2-6-2008

I've heard many people comment about the lack of detail in Obama's message, claiming they still don't know what he stands for or what he really intends to "change" and I think it's at best an easy cop-out or at worst an intentional effort to mislead. The facts are all online.

Each candidate has a web site with detailed information on positions on every issue. To the extent that what's on the sites are honest expressions of intent, critics should be equally honest in expressing discomfort with race or simple intellectual laziness. But don't blame a candidate, any candidate for being unclear. It's all online in black and white where you can believe what you want.

I tend to believe Mr. Obama when he says he intends to change the way we relate to one another across political lines. I like most of his policy positions. I'd only suggest he direct people to his web site more often.

Sent by V Hill | 3:32 PM | 2-6-2008

What does Clinton have to say about the fact that she has the largest lobbyist funding out of any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat? And how can she be a candidate of change when she keeps polarizing herself against the republicans and touting herself as defiant against them? What we need is a candidate who people can believe. Most people I know (myself included) would vote for anyone but Clinton.

Sent by Nic McVicker | 3:35 PM | 2-6-2008

Do we have any analysis of states and counties that were red in 2004, and voted one way or another on the democratic side in 2008? In Missouri, I have a co-worker (very much republican) who said he wanted Clinton for the democratic party so that the republicans could rally against her. I heard something about many 2004 red counties going for Clinton

Sent by Chris in St. Louis | 3:39 PM | 2-6-2008

What is Ann Lewis drinking? The hardest fight Hillary Clinton has had in New York was last nights primary. In her first and second senate races she won with a 35+ point victory. She's the one who has never had a serious opponent until Obama. I for one do not want to see another Clinton in the White House. One was more than enough.

Sent by Gary Anderson | 3:40 PM | 2-6-2008

When this campaign started I was a Kucinich supporter.
But I decided a month ago for Hillary.

Why I am voting for Hillary Clinton:

1. Misogyny runs deep in this country even deeper than race. The proof is to compare the jokes the late night hosts tell about each candidate. Everyone should do it. It's eye opening.

2. Hillary has learned much in her terms in the Senate and those who I admire support her - especially those in the House: Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank and Jim McGovern.
You can't get a more honorable trio than that.

3. On the issues: They are even. It's not the tweaking of the positions but whether or not the person they are can make anything happen when they get into office.

3. I like her. She's tough. She's smart. She learns. (That last one is very important to me) What's not to like?

However, I will vote for whoever we democrats nominate. It's a wonderful time to be a Democrat. We are making history no matter what happens.

Sent by Anne Hoffmann | 3:54 PM | 2-6-2008

When I hear the repeated question, "what will happen to the Democratic votes in Michigan and Florida?" the follow-up question I want to hear is:

What if Michigan and Florida ran a second Democratic primary on the same day as Indiana's and NC's primaries, making the total number of delegates at stake 84+134+128+210=>556, would the Democratic convention seat the delegates selected?

That would make May 6th, the second largest day for determining delegates to the Democratic convention, after super Tuesday and before March 4th.

Of course, they could also hold it on June 7th with Puerto Rico putting 401 delegates in play, for the third largest day. With the current trajectory of the Democratic nomination, Michigan and Florida would be anticipating a lot of visits from Obama and Hillary, competing with Puerto Rico for the attention of the candidates and the nation.

Sent by michael pettengill | 4:38 PM | 2-6-2008

I am very concerned that if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to split the Democratic delegates as the primaries continue, as I think likely, then neither will get enough delegates to win the nomination outright. This will mean that, practically, the nominee will be selected at the convention by the vote of the so-called "superdelegates."

I think this could be devastating to the party if the superdelegates are perceived as coronating someone in an unfair fashion. Such a result would make meaningless all the hard work and votes cast by all the party's supporters in the primaries. Moreover, if Hillary Clinton were to be selected solely by the vote of the superdelegates, this kind of backroom deal would risk losing all the new young and African-American voters Obama has energized when the general election comes around.

Therefore, I would urge both candidates to agree now, to take a pledge, that the superdelegate votes will be split pro-rata, based on the primary results in actual elections.

Sent by JayHub | 5:21 PM | 2-6-2008

I wanted Hillary because she Is A Strong Woman and while many others voted for her, we realized that women are always in a leadership bind = if strong, she is accused of being "too strong, brusque, stern, strict, et al", if she has a tender moment from exhaustion of keeping up that male-competitive front to win, she is accused of being "hysterical, fake, cry-baby".

Then if a women is smart she is labeled as "arrogant, scheming, too ambitious" but if she is hiding her smarts to win male and even female approval, she is questioned as to her competence and relevancy.

Hillary has it 2x as hard as a darker male, who is still "a man" and with his wife's corroboration makes sure everyone realizes he cant be accused as any woman
automatically is put-down.

And yet...Hillary won California.
Wopeeee ! at least we on this coast are not intimidated by women who have to prove themselves as no man is required to do...at least we judge a person by her abilities, her character, her persistence, intelligence & inner strengths.

Long may she Succeed ! for all our sakes, and non-gender-age-determined.

Sent by Maria Joy | 6:07 PM | 2-6-2008

Support comes from: