January 19th, 2008
09:23 PM ET
soundoff (42 Responses)
  1. Richard from Detroit

    McCain basically won because Mr Thompson got a chunk of the old southern conservative vote which would of went to Huckabee if Thompson would not have been running.Its really a very minor victory for McCain since his 33% victory is even smaller than that if you want to consider support from Southern,Baptist Conservatives voters.Alot of those that voted for him were non South Carolinian natives,typically retires or those that moved to South Carolina for jobs from the Midwestern and Northern states, or as we call them " Yankees". Watch for Romney to actually take McCains state of Arizona, including New Mexico and most of the western states .

    January 19, 2008 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm |
  2. Andrew, Evansville, IN

    Congrats to McCain. The man has more integrity and experience than either of the two likely Democrat candidates....combined!!!

    January 19, 2008 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm |
  3. Holly NC

    Tampico Jack, add Huckabee to that list – he just doesn't know it yet. Reality will sink in sooner or later.

    January 19, 2008 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm |
  4. Hal

    Apparently people in South Carolina want to send their young to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries for 100 years or more. McCain will be slaughtered in the general election by Hillary because this country does not want more pointless war. The only way the GOP has a prayer this fall is with an anti-war, anti-interventionist candidate. This is how Bush won in 2000, and this is the only way we will win and defeat Hillary in 2008.

    January 19, 2008 11:20 pm at 11:20 pm |
  5. Ian Webster

    Hmmm. Duncan Hunter is afraid of an "emerging China". Note to Hunter, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. He's a fear-mongerer. And Fred Thompson, I think saying his name alone doesn't require elaboration. The man does not have an ability to speak to the country as a whole. Just the southern rednecks...

    January 19, 2008 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm |
  6. Mrs. Brown

    Way to go John McCain! An honest to goodness truthful man at last. Hey people, just look up his records and you will see the best man for our president who says what he means and means what he says.

    January 20, 2008 12:52 am at 12:52 am |
  7. Mechelle

    Where's the CNN headline, "CNN projects Romney will win Nevada"???

    You guys are sooooo one sided!

    January 20, 2008 12:57 am at 12:57 am |
  8. K. Wilkinson

    WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? I can't believe that Carolinians would vote McAmnesty! I guess those jobs lost to the overwhelming influx of illegals weren't that important to them after all. Way to make your unemployment permanent. With McCain on board, you might as well take a number at the unemployment office.

    So much for making your vote count!

    January 20, 2008 01:07 am at 1:07 am |
  9. Daniel M.

    You make it sound so bad that McCain isn't such a die hard righty. We need more moderates running this country. The last thing we need is someone on the far left or far right (LOOK AT BUSH!) to be leading this country. I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and I imagine a whole different country than the quagmire bush got us into had he won then. He might be old and he may not get the nomination in the end but he is an American Icon and a moderate. Is that so bad?

    January 20, 2008 02:18 am at 2:18 am |
  10. Anonymous, Somewhere, MI

    "At this time however, I think Romney is our best shot at beating the misguided Democrats."

    By what calculus do you even begin to arrive at that conclusion? Here's some hard numbers and facts. Generally when a candidate can muster 50% or more support in polls going into an election it's mostly a done deal. If that candidate is seen as a "challenger," which the Democrats are this year as the White House is held by a Republican, any undecideds will generally break in favor of them. So, off to Real Clear Politics to see how these guys stack up in poll averages:

    Romney, compared against Edwards, Obama, and Clinton not only loses in each one (by 16.3%, 21.4%, and 12% respectively), but each of those candidates crosses the 50% threshold in the polling averages in their matchup against Mitt. Simply put, at this stage of the game Romney is a loser against these guys. Unlike a primary contest, it doesn't do you any good to get the "silver" in the general election. Furthermore, Mitt Romney has had a lot of national exposure at this point, so there isn't going to be a "getting to know Mitt," phase during which he can overcome this deficit.

    Now, what's interesting is that only two candidates stack up like this against Edwards, Romney and Thompson. McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee all at least leave Edwards below the 50% threshold. When stacked up against Obama and Hillary; Giuliani, Huckabee, and Thompson all see Obama over the 50% threshold. Hillary only crosses the 50% threshold against Giuliani among that group. The only candidate who keeps both Hillary and Obama below the 50% threshold and actually posts leads over them in the poll averages is McCain. In other words, of the current field of Republican candidates it is McCain who is the best shot of beating the Democrats as things stand, and Romney may actually stand the worst chance.

    January 20, 2008 04:20 am at 4:20 am |
  11. Chris Crew, WA

    McCain is the ONLY Republican with a small chance of winning against any of the top three Dems (Hillary, Obama, & Edwards). Likely, even he will lose because of his overwhelming support for the war in Iraq.

    Despite this, the paranoid/hateful base of the Republican party will never elect McCain. They will ALWAYS choose someone who wants to make abortion illegal and is anti-gay (McCain is neither). These are the two main issues that Republicans have used for a generation to convince people to vote against their economic interest to win elections. Giving either one of these up is nearly impossible at this point as their base has coalesced so strongly around this issues. Most of the base would rather have a massive deficit, a dollar crisis, mortgage crisis, and high oil prices than a pro-gay rights and pro-choice candidate.

    Its kind of sad when you think about it. Many poor and middle-class people are totally duped into voting for the party of the super-rich because they don't like gay people or legal abortions... Luckily for the American Middle Class, people have turned against the war and will vote for change.

    January 20, 2008 05:54 am at 5:54 am |
  12. Mike VE

    I am voting for MITT ROMNEY!!!!!

    Mitt has not been in Washington for years like John McLaim, Clinton and Obama.

    Mitt has held executive positions as a Govenor and in private business, Obama, Clinton and John McLaim have only worked in Washington they do not have a clue about private business or the American economy.

    Mitt is a conservative that’s why the media hates him; John McLaim is a liberal just look who he associates with Kennedy, Feingold, the gang of 14, ect. and that’s why the media loves John McLaim.

    Mitt is against amnesty for illegal aliens; Obama, Clinton and John McLaim are for amnesty for illegal aliens.

    Mitt is for tax cuts, Obama, Clinton and John McLaim are against tax cuts and want to raise our taxes.

    Mitt is for conservative judges, Obama, Clinton and John McLaim are for liberal judges.

    Mitt wants to free Americans and American business from the federal government Obama, Clinton and John McLaim want big government and are responsible for big government we have.

    Mitt will fight to protect this country and build a strong military; Obama, Clinton and John McLaim stood by when al-Qaeda attacked our interests in the 1990 and the 1980s.

    Mitt Romney is the right change for America

    Vote for Mitt!!!

    January 20, 2008 08:19 am at 8:19 am |
  13. Independent

    For the person who said CNN is one-sided because "Romney projected to win Nevada" wasn't the top headline – where were ya from 12-3 pm when that was all we heard? And from 3-7 pm when it was the top headline with Clinton winning Nevada? Maybe it isn't the top headline anymore because:

    a) Romney and Paul were the only candidates who spent much $ trying to win there and
    b) 1/4 of the voters in Nevada were Mormon, of which 97% voted for Romney. Sure am glad they didn't use religion as a reason to decide who to vote for.

    January 20, 2008 08:35 am at 8:35 am |
  14. ED WinterPark fl

    there is no place on anyones ticket for a war mongering candidate. GOPer's like that kind of sadism because if they have there flunky in the big seat he will only send the poor and disadvantaged off to get killed for there benefit ie oil.

    January 20, 2008 08:50 am at 8:50 am |
  15. PJ, New York

    Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

    January 20, 2008 11:33 am at 11:33 am |
  16. Mrs. Brown

    Bravo to SC in choosing the best man for the job. An honest , pulls no punches man, and doesn't promise anything unless he believes in it from his heart. Do the research to see his credentials.

    January 20, 2008 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  17. Dave Polson

    I see all this fuss over each of the candidates when they win a this state or that state, but with the shuffle in primary dates who can even come close to predicting who will become the GOP candidate. and I don't understand why there isn't more attention paid to the total number of delegates each has. I have not heard a single news commentator state that Romney has almost double the delegates of his nearest challenger! And isn't the end goal to have more delegates than anyone else in the end?

    January 20, 2008 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
1 2