Budget

Of the three budgets that have been delivered so far, this seems to be the biggest yawner. Nothing too controversial, but nothing really great either. A very average budget, which pretty much means depending on whether you are one of the more hawkish Liberals (like myself) you would vote against it, while if a more dovish one you would vote for it. As we enter a recession, big spending is the last thing we need, so I am glad there was no large spending, that being said I don't think much thought was given into how to manage it. In addition, I am concerned by the government's past projections. Jim Flaherty as Ontario finance minister hid a $5.6 billion deficit and my concern that if prudence isn't shown we could see another deficit. Had the government not gone on a big spending binge in past budgets or provided income tax cuts rather than a GST cut, we might have more wiggle room. I am all for paying down the debt as despite the fact most woud prefer tax cuts or more spending, the lower the debt is, the less interest we pay on it and this frees up more money to spend elsewhere.

As for the Liberals voting for the budget, I suspect that if the Liberals didn't support it, the Bloc Quebecois probably would as right now the polls seem to be bouncing up and down and too volatile for it to be to the benefit of any party going to an election. An election right now would be a roll of the dice for all parties. Now off course, I support parties standing by their principles, but the reality this budget for the Liberals clearly falls in the gray area. It is not good enough to warrant its support on its own, but neither bad enough to warrant defeating it either.

BC's Carbon Tax

As a former British Columbian myself and still a card carrying member of the BC Liberals (mine expires in 2009, however I will renew it if I ever return to British Columbia) I obviously take a great interest in what is happening. As someone who is both pro free market, but concerned about the environment, I believe BC's solution is the best of both worlds. This does not involve higher taxes overall or more regulation, but it gives British Columbians a strong incentive to reduce pollution and GHGs. By rewarding those who cut emissions and punishing those who increase them, this works in many ways like the market where higher prices cause people to buy less and lower prices cause people to buy more. Pollution is in economics what we call an externality, but since it is not priced, an optimal amount is not reached, but rather we have too much. What a carbon tax does, is it puts a price on pollution and then lets the market take care of the rest. This is the first in Canada and I hope others follow soon, although I don't count on Alberta following anytime soon and neither do I count on the federal government following suit as long as the Tories are in charge. However, much as California has been the leader on many issues in the United States, I believe British Columbia can be the same within Canada and on the environment it is. While most applaud this and indeed this will make it even more likely that in 2009 the BC Liberals will increase their seat count, there are some hard core conservatives who feel Campbell has abandoned them. I never really bought the idea he was a conservative ideologue and most close to him would argue he is actually more middle of the road than many think. Rather he is a premier that wants to see British Columbia succeed in all areas and will do what it takes to do so. In 2001, when he became premier, we had a large deficit and high taxes that were driving business away. He reduced taxes and cut spending in order to get our fiscal house in order and once again make BC an attractive place to do business. While he may have adopted many policies the Conservative ideologues liked such as tax cuts, privatization, spending cuts, and battles with public sector unions, his reasoning was he did what was necessary to turn BC around, whereas the conservative ideologues would support these policies whether they were appropriate for the time or not appropriate. In addition, Campbell has avoided federal bashing unlike most other premiers and past ones in British Columbia and this has paid off in terms of what BC has gotten. Although, it would be better if the federal government showed leadership, inaction at the federal level should not condemn the provinces to inaction. While attacking the federal government over their lack of action may be good politics, it will do little to deal with climate change. I am pleased with BC's leadership and would happily support anyone who showed similiar resolve at the federal level whatever party they ran on. Since Dion is still new and unknown, hopefully he can show similiar leadership on the environment (on the economy and taxes, Chretien and Martin took care of this). When it comes to the environment, it does not have to necessarily be a left vs. right thing. In fact the leaders in both Canada (Gordon Campbell) and United States (Arnold Schwartznegger) are both centre-right, they just are not ideologues who oppose doing anything about the environment because it goes against their ideology.

Here in Ontario, John Tory got 67% in a leadership review. Although I would have supported Tory for leader in 2004, I would have also voted in favour of having him step down as leader. I generally believe in giving leaders two shots as most don't succeed on their first try, but the fact he won fewer votes and fewer seats (if you include the re-distributed results) than Ernie Eves did in 2003, which was a bad result for the Ontario PCs, he clearly needs to go. Dalton McGuinty isn't widely hated, but isn't widely loved either so his ability to be re-elected or not depended heavily on his opponent and since his opponent ran a disastrous campaign, he would won handily. This is also not the first time Tory has shown bad political judgement, he showed the same thing when he managed Kim Campbell's disastrous 1993 campaign. The Ontario PCs needs someone who is as moderate as John Tory, but has better political judgement. If I had to suggest who I think would be the best choice, my choice would be Elizabeth Witmer who fits both of those criterias.

Kosovo Independence

On Sunday, Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by some countries such as the United States and the majority of EU countries, while not recognized by others such as Russia. Canada has yet to take a firm position, which is one I support. I am not totally opposed to recognizing Kosovo independence, but I think a legal opinion and the potential precedent it could set needs to be sought first before taking a stance. I am very concerned that recognizing Kosovo's unilateral succession could have dangerous implications elsewhere. Here in Canada, we have a strong separtist movement, so we have every reason to ensure Quebec could not use this is a precedent for seeking unilateral independence. One of the few EU countries opposing recognition of Kosovo is Spain who has had to contend with Basque separtists for some time, whereas Germany, France, and Italy don't have any such threats. In fact the United Kingdom and Turkey are the only countries so far endorsing Kosovo independence that have active independence movements in their countries (UK - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Turkey - Kurdistan). However, even if we argue that this should only be applied to groups that have faced persecution and repression, I ask why only Kosovo. The Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibetans in China, Kashmir in India, Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, Chechens in Russia, Abkhaz and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina to name a few could all make similiar claims. This is why I think it is important to seek a legal opinion to ensure such move would not strengthen the separtists ability in Quebec to declare independence unilaterally or lead to similar movements globally.

I as a general rule believe unilateral succession should only be recognized if one of the following two conditions are met.

1. The country was illegally invaded and occupied by the country it is seeking independence from (i.e. Palestine)

2. A referendum was held with a clear question and a clear majority in favour of succession (i.e. Montenegro).

3. The country in control of the area voluntarily grants it independence (i.e. India by Britain or through military defeat such as US in 1783).

To date Kosovo meets none of these conditions. Now a referendum probably would pass, but it is still quite reasonable to insist one be held before recognizing it.

Now I realize in the case of the European Union, that their goal is to see Serbia and Kosovo join in the future and in all practical sense, Kosovo would not have any more autonomy as an EU member state than they do now as EU membership does entail surrendering a fair amount of sovereignty (although all EU Countries are still sovereign countries in the sense the EU only has as much power as the consent to give it, but has no automatic right to any power), however it is still at least another ten years before either country will meet the criteria for EU membership. Croatia and Montenegro may join in the near future, but Serbia and Kosovo both still have a long ways to go. And when one considers how weak the economy is in Kosovo and the fact it is predominately Muslim (I don't see this as an issue, but I am well aware many Europeans will), I am not so sure the public is as eager as the bureaucrats in Brussels to see it granted membership, especially considering membership grants them the right to live and work anywhere in the union.

Finally, in the event Kosovo is recognized as an independent country, it is essential that the rights of the Serb minority be fully protected. Just because the Serbs treated the Albanians poorly doesn't give them the right to do the same to the Serbs. In addition, I don't think it is totally unreasonable for the districts in the northeast where Serbs are the majority to rejoin Serbia if they so choose. While Kosovo will be predominately Muslim, the right of the Orthodox Christian minority to practice their religion and as a matter fact all other faiths must be protected as well as the Serbs right to preserve their culture and language needs to be protected.

In summary, I don't dispute that Serbia, treated the Kosovar Albanians horribly and that independence probably was the only solution in the long-run. But even if it is the right solution, the way about going about it is very concerning and needs to be firmly grounded in international law if it is to be supported. There is nothing wrong with Canada refusing to recognize Kosovo as an indepedent country until independence is sought properly.

Recent Events

I will have more on the US primaries on the Kosovo issue in a different post, but I thought I would lump my views on a few issues in a quick summary

In Ontario, there seems to be some controversy over the new Family Day. While I agree it would have made more financial sense to put it off until 2009 to give businesses more time to plan, I really don't see it as a big deal. Many people, including myself, are still required to work some stat holidays, so contrary to what some say, most businesses can remain open on stat holidays and likewise there is no inherent right to have them off. Rather those who work them must either get an extra paid day off or get paid time and a half.

Today, Quebec released the Castonguay report, which calls for allowing a parallel private system and a small user fees. While such actions would likely violate the Canada Health Act, I still think the report is a good thing in terms of it will hopefully encourage debate on the issue. While the proposals may seem radical to most Canadians, most European countries have parallel private systems and user fees despite generally being too the left of Canada, so it is not as radical as it seems. Also whether one agrees with them or disagrees, I think it is time to have a mature debate on the issue instead of treating the CHA as a sacred cow that cannot be touched and arguing that health care is a black and white issue where either you support a totally private or totally public system and nothing in between. In reality, almost nothing is black and white, so its time to end the idea that issues and black and white (save for perhaps a few). Over 90% of Canadians don't support the American system, but I would argue it is time to start comparing ourselves to the best not the worst. My mom, always said that I should compare myself to the best rather than worst, so I think in health care lets look at what works in those who perform better than us, not say our system is perfect because it is better than the United States, which has one of the worst systems in the developed world. I do believe there are merits for not going to such system as well as merits for going, but lets have an open mind and open debate on this for once.

The other big issue is the OLF (or known as the language police in English Canada) have stepped up their efforts and are certainly get lots of negative media attention in English Canada. I have no problem with ensuring that Francophones in Quebec have the same employment opportunities as Anglophones and I do think that all businesses in Quebec should offer service in French as it is only proper to offer service in the dominate language. However, I clearly believe the OLF has in numerous instances gone too far and caused more problems than its solved. You can give more rights to one group without taking away rights from another, but rather than enhanching the rights of Francophones, it seems to be more about taking away rights from Anglophones. As someone who has defended bilingualism, elsewhere in Canada, instances like this make it far more difficult for me to sell the merits of bilingualism. If anything this will hurt the Francophone minorities outside Quebec as they rely on the goodwill from the Anglophone majority and willingness to provide services in French. My worry is that if the Anglophone minority is perceived as being treated as second class citizens in Quebec, there will be less support for providing Francophone minorities service in French. This would be unfortunate and I don't believe in the idea of two wrongs making a right, however I am a realist and realize such actions only make it easier for those who want to scrap bilingualism.

Today Castro, has handed over power in Cuba. While I do see this as a good thing in the sense that he was a brutal dictator, this does not mean I support the US policy on Cuba, especially considering Batista was even worse, yet actively supported by the US. US policy in Latin America has been less about supporting democracy and more about supporting regimes friendly to the US and opposing ones hostile to them. I hope Cuba does become a democracy that respects human rights, but the type of government and economic system used ought to be decided by the Cuban people and no one else. I fully support capitalism and free enterprise, but I would never argue we should impose those systems on others, rather we should practice them at home and let others decide whether to follow or not.

US Scene

Since Super Tuesday, a few events have occurred. First on the Democrat side, Obama pulled off a clean sweep yesterday, winning Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington, while today he won Maine. This definitely gives him momentum, and although not yet the frontrunner, he may pull ahead soon. Nebraska, was no surprise, as he has pretty much won all the Middle American states and likewise Louisiana was no surprise either as all the Southern states with large African-American populations, he has won and Louisiana unlike Tennessee and Arkansas fits this. Washington being on the coast and with a large union population would fit the bill of being a potential Clinton state, however almost all her wins have been in primaries, not caucuses where Obama tends to do well, so no surprise Obama won, but the size of his win was definitely impressive. He not only won in Eastern Washington and the large college towns where he normally does well, but finished ahead in King County, which fits more the profile of a Clinton strength. Most polls also show he has a better chance at beating McCain over Clinton, which maybe helping him.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney dropped out, and all I can say is good riddance. Whether you are a liberal, conservative, or moderate, this guy was someone who relied on big money, nasty attacks, and was willing to flip flop on just about every position just to win the nomination. Despite being seen as a hard right conservative, he was quite moderate as governor of Massachusetts, so this shows he is willing to change his positions to whatever suits his interests, whereas at least McCain and Huckabee stick to their principles, even if one disagrees with them. Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, while McCain won Washington. Kansas and Louisiana are both part of the bible belt so no real surprise here although, I am not surprised McCain was competitive in Louisiana but not Kansas. Unlike most of the South, Louisiana has a large Catholic population and unlike Texas and Florida, where is primarily due to the large Latino community, in Louisiana most Catholics are white (of French ancestry primarily, the Cajuns), so I wonder if this is why his win was smaller as he is strongest amongst Evangelical Protestants. Still, despite Huckabee's impressive wins, I think he is too far behind to catch McCain. The real issue is can McCain unite both the moderate and conservative factions of the Republicans. Despite, what some say, McCain is a conservative on over 80% of the issues. The problem for some Conservatives is anything less than 100% is not good enough. They would rather have a candidate who blindly follows an ideology, rather than one who generally supports a certain ideology but also assesses the facts. Also the fact McCain isn't a rabid partisan and can work with the other side angers many conservatives. But while this may anger many conservatives, I would argue someone who can work with the other side is a good thing considering it is highly unlikely the Republicans will take all three branches so if they don't want political gridlock, they need a leader who can work with others. And never mind, I thought politics was about serving your country and representing everyone, not just representing your base. As Obama, rightly pointed out, the President's goal shouldn't be just to unite his or her party, but also unite all Americans. Although I don't want the Republicans to win, I am happy to see nutjobs like James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, and Anne Coulter have an egg in their face.

Events at Home

Most of my last posts have been on what is happening in the United States, so here is one on what is happening back here in Canada.

Federal Election Threat

The Tories have created three different possibilities for the government to fall in the next month. Considering two recent polls show them slightly behind the Liberals, albeit within the margin of error, it seems odd as to why they are so eager to go now. One of the possibilities is the budget, which off course is always a confidence motion, so I won't focus much on this one. My argument is with the next two, the crime bill in the senate and the Afghanistan motion. On the case of the crime bill, I am not sure this is even allowed as I don't believe the government has the authority to tell the senate to do anything. Now I know some will say it is wrong to hold up legislation in the senate, but the issue if senate reform is a whole different issue and should be dealt with separately. This is clearly playing political games and my hope is the speaker rules this as out of order. Likewise since an election cannot be called until October 2009, if Harper goes to the governor general and asks for an election without actually losing a confidence motion, I think she should refuse to grant this and instead ask the Liberals to form the government. While I generally don't like this idea, I wish Harper should quit trying to do things that could provoke a constitutional crisis.

Now on the Afghanistan issue, there is no risk of provoking a constitutional crisis, however, politically speaking, I cannot understand why Harper is so keen on going on this issue considering this is an area his government is weak in, especially in Quebec, where he is hoping to gain seats. I know the Manley panel did give him some cover as Manley is a well respected Liberal and his positions are not totally supportive of the Conservatives, but neither do they fully support the current Liberal position, so I wonder if Harper is hoping to divide the Liberals over this. I think Dion's position of staying in Afghanistan past 2009, but in a non-combat role is quite reasonable. This doesn't mean combat will win altogether, it simply means a country other than Canada will take it on since we have done far more than our fair share, it is not unreasonable to ask someone else in NATO to step up to the plate.

My advice to the Liberals would be to try and bring the government down on the Afghanistan issue as I think this will be the most favourable to the Liberals. However, it looks like a spring election is very likely, although not guaranteed.

Alberta Election

An Election has been called in Alberta for March 3rd. I happen to fully agree with Ralph Klein's prediction, which is the Tories will win again, but with fewer seats. That was the one thing I liked about Ralph Klein, unlike most politicians, is he would say whatever he thought and was a straight shooter. Too bad we don't have more politicians like this. Now, in terms of how I think things will play out, I expect Edmonton to go largely Liberal with a few NDP seats and maybe a few Tory seats. Although Ed Stelmach is more popular in Edmonton than Ralph Klein was, he faces the issue of many feeling the party has been in power too long and it is time for change. In the case of Calgary, the opposite is true, as Klein was very popular here and Stelmach is not. I expect the core of Calgary to go largely Liberal, while the prephery to go PC. Rural Alberta, which is Stelmach's base, should stay largely Tory, although a couple of wins by the Wildrose Alliance is possible as well as they could split the vote enough to allow the Liberals to come up the middle in some smaller cities like Red Deer and Lethbridge.

Although the Tories have been in power long enough that many feel it is time for change, never mind Stelmach doesn't have the personal appeal that Ralph Klein did, so this should hurt them, however, I think they will win primarily due to the alternatives. The Liberals certainly got a boost after getting an endorsement by Ron Wood, who was a former aide to Preston Manning. Much of the Liberals weakness has been they have been seen as too liberal for Alberta, so this might help debunk this. Still I think the party is a bit to the left of your average Albertan. Unlike Ontario, where the Liberal platform would be an easy sell, Alberta is a more conservative province, so the Liberals should probably be slightly more conservative, but still to the left of the Tories if they wish to win. The Democrats in the United States are to the right of the Liberals in Canada, and likewise many of Conservative parties in Europe are to the left of the Tories in Canada. The reason for this is parties position themselves closest to where the median voter is. Also, the word Liberal, is still a dirty word in Alberta for many as many Albertans still associate the Liberals with Pierre Trudeau and his unpopular National Energy Program. I have argued in the past the party should change its name so it is not associated with the federal Liberals. My suggestions were the moderate party or centre party. At least, though the federal Liberals are not in power now, which is why I think they will do better than they have in the past, since in addition to people wanting change and Stelmach being less popular than Klein, the Liberal bogeyman won't work as well as it has other times. The NDP has never been strong in Alberta outside a few Edmonton ridings, so I expect them to struggle just to hold official party status. Albertans have seen the NDP in action in the two neighbouring provinces and have decided they don't want to go there. Finally there is the Wildrose Alliance which provides a right wing alternative to the PCs. While they will be the main competitor in Rural Alberta as this area is staunchly conservative and many find Stelmach too much of a Red Tory, they are likely a little too right wing for Calgary and Edmonton. The people in the cities are more conservative than Vancouver and Toronto, which is why they go Conservative instead of Liberal federally, but they are not hardcore right wingers like you see in the Deep South of the United States. Although history shows usually a non-opposition party on the right side of the spectrum replaces the governing party about once every 35 years, at this point I don't like the Wildrose Alliance is capable of doing this.

As for what I am hoping for, I would like to see the Tories win a weaker majority government. This would give them a good slap on the wrist, but also send a message to the opposition parties that they need to make changes. In terms of how I would vote, I would vote based on the local candidate, so in some cases I would go PC, while other areas Liberal. In 2004, I would have voted PC as I like Ralph Klein and I am generally a Progressive Conservative, but I do feel the party does need a time out. And unlike with Stephen Harper, my problem with Ed Stelmach is not that he is too right wing, after all, asides from the environment, he is a pretty big spender, but rather 35 years of governance by one party is simply too long.

Super Tuesday

The polls have now closed in West Virginia and Georgia. In West Virginia, only the Republicans held their primary, while Georgia features both the Republicans and Democrats. Huckabee has won West Virginia, which certainly gives him some much needed momentum after it appeared he was out. This is also a state where his views would fit well. Historically, this has been a very safe Democrat state when economic issues were the main issues, but as moral issues rose to prominence this state swung over to the Republicans. Huckabee is very right wing socially, but not quite as right wing economically.

Obama wins Georgia, which is definitely a great start. Not only did he win the state, but by a resounding margin and even was competitive amongst white voters, unlike South Carolina where his support came mainly from black voters.

UPDATE #1: Nine states close and the projections so far are McCain takes Connecticut and Illinois while Romney takes Massachusetts. Obama takes Illinois while Clinton takes Oklahoma. McCain winning Illinois is definitely a big win as it is one of the larger states. Romney's win in Massachusetts is no surprise considering that is his home state. Obama's win in Illinois was off course widely expected. The bigger question later tonight is which will by a larger margin, Obama in Illinois or Clinton in New York. Most polls in Oklahoma showed Clinton well ahead so no surprise.

UPDATE #2

McCain wins New Jersey, which is not a surprise. He does best amongst those who don't like Bush and describe themselves as Moderates and this group is strongest in the Northeast. I know some like Brandon will argue he is a true conservative, but I would argue perception often matters more than reality and he is perceived as more moderate than Romney and Huckabee.

UPDATE #3: NBC has projected that Clinton will take Tennessee. Haven't followed that race close enough to really comment on it.

UPDATE #4: Huckabee takes Arkansas and Clinton takes Arkansas, which is really no surprise. If either lost the state, it would be a huge upset.

UPDATE #5: CNN projects John McCain will take Delaware. Not too big a surprise as this is another Northeastern state where he is strongest.

UPDATE #6: Hilary Clinton wins New York, which is not really a surprise considering this is her home state. Although I am surprised that CNN hasn't projected Arizona for McCain because this is home state, so I wonder what is happening here.

UPDATE #7: Barack Obama carries Delaware, so although not many delegates, at least one more Northeast state. NBC has projected Huckabee has won Alabama. Although Huckabee has won two states, with his support being mostly concentrated in the South, I am not sure that will be enough to save his candidacy. NBC has also predicted Clinton has won Massachusetts and this is definitely huge for Clinton considering the Kennedy family, John Kerry, and governor Deval Patrick all endorsed Barack Obama.

UPDATE #8

NBC has projected Clinton has won New Jersey. Considering a significant portion of the population in New Jersey lives in the metropolitan New York area this is no surprise. CNN Projects Obama will win Alabama, which seems to following the trend of winning Southern states with large African-American populations.

UPDATE #9

NBC projects McCain wins Oklahoma while CNN Projects Romney wins Utah, which is not surprising considering the state is overwhelmingly Mormon. NBC has also projected Obama will win North Dakota. So far, although early, it seems Obama is doing well in the Midwest states and this is definitely a good sign when it comes to a general election as the South and the Midwest is where Democrats need to pick up states if they wish to win the general election. NBC has projected Obama has won Utah. Interesting that it is not just the states with large black populations Obama is winning in, but rather seems to be in the states that are less solidly Democrat (save Illinois and Delaware, and maybe Connecticut).

UPDATE #10

CNN Projects Obama will win Kansas and Connecticut. The Connecticut win is a definitely plus as this is right next door to New York and in fact many of the people in Western Connecticut commute to New York City.

UPDATE #11

CNN projects Obama will win Minnesota, it looks like we are seeing a pattern here. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe Bush lost all the Northeast states and West Coast states and still won the presidency in 2004, so could Obama win the Democrat nomination by taking the Southern and middle states.

UPDATE #12

CNN projects John McCain will win Arizona, which shouldn't come as any surprise considering this is his home state.

UPDATE #13

CNN Projects Mitt Romney wins North Dakota, although I am not sure how much this will do for him. California is too close to call, so it will be a while before we find out who takes the prize possession.

UPDATE #14

CNN Projects Mitt Romney wins Minnesota.

I am going to sign off for the night. I will have more tomorrow when the results are in.

FINAL THOUGHTS

On the Republican side, McCain has undoubtedly emerged as the clear frontrunner although he didn't pull off the clean sweep some were hoping for. At this point, it is probably a greater than 90% chance he will win the Republican nomination. The only way I could see him losing it is if either Romney or Huckabee drop out soon and their supporters go en masse to the other side. I also see his wins in the Northeast and more moderate states as a plus for him as if the Republicans want to win the next election they need to hold what they had last time around and at least stay competitive in some of the Northeast states. McCain winning is a good thing for the Republicans in terms of the fact he is the only one that stands a realistic chance of winning the next election, while on the surface not good for the Democrats as he is the toughest to beat. However, as I mentioned earlier, I would rather the Democrats face a tough battle since my worry is they might get complacent if Romney or Huckabee was the Republican leader. However, despite McCain's positive polling numbers right now, he does face some major hurdles ahead. Much of the conservative base in the Republican party is convinced he is not a true conservative and unlike Canada where you can win without this group due to how small they are, you need this group to show up at the polls to win. At the same time if you pander too excessively to this group, you scare off many moderates, so if McCain either ignores them too much or panders to them too heavily, this could hurt him. Romney's inability to do as well as expected was definitely a good thing as besides disliking this guys' views, he is a huge flip flopper with few principles. Never mind, it is always nice to see people like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have an egg in their face. I was surprised to see Mike Huckabee do as well as he did, but considering that he is definitely the most socially conservative of the three and has the strongest appeal to Evangelicals, it is not totally surprising as Evangelicals comprise a large portion of the Republican vote in the South.

On the Democrats, there is no clear front-runner. Clinton won more states winning both New York and California, however, Obama won more states, never mind the Democrats divide up delegates based on congressional districts, not winner takes all, so this means Obama will likely get delegates from New York and California. I also think the fact Obama won mostly in red states shows he has a better chance at winning since the Democrats must pick up states to win the next election. I agree that his wins in the South, although good for his prospects of winning the party nomination, won't mean a lot in a general election as the South is solidly Republican save for perhaps Florida. At the same time the Midwest and the Mountain West is not solidly Republican and this is an area the Democrats can pick up states. His strong support amongst African-Americans in the South, was no surprise, but his large wins shows his support is not just limited to this community, but also includes people from the white community. In addition states such as North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, and Minnesota don't have a very Black population so he also has a strong appeal amongst white voters. In fact according to CNN's exit poll in California, he not only won amongst African-Americans in that state, he won amongst white voters, but lost badly amongst Latinos and Asian-Americans. His weak support amongst Latinos is undoubtedly something he has to overcome. With no clear front-runner for the Democrats, it will be interesting to see who wins the next few states, as this will show who has the momentum when going into larger ones such as Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania which come later. I suspect Obama will take the Potomac states and Louisiana, but Washington is still too close to call.