It looks like the Senate will vote Thursday on an amendement that would ban earmarks for a year.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Sen. John McCain has changed his campaign schedule so he could be in Washington for votes, including this one.

McCain has been a leading opponent of earmarks, as Kevin Diaz points out in his story about Rep. Betty McCollum’s effort to put Gov. Tim Pawlenty in an awkward position over the pork barrel spending.

In fact, the Republican senator has never asked for one, according to the National Taxpayers Union (NTU).

Not so for the two Democratic presidential candidates.

In this year’s spending bills, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton received $342 million, putting her in 10th place in the Senate, according to figures compiled by the Taxpayers for Common Sense. Sen. Barack Obama received $97 million, ranking him 74th.

You can find a wealth of information about earmarks — including who got what — at the Taxpayers for Common Sense website.

With Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about Barack Obama, all three leading presidential candidates have recently faced situations where their surrogates made controversial remarks. How do you rate the candidates’ handling of these cases?

In chronological order:

John McCain
On Feb. 26, McCain made a campaign stop in Cincinnati. Before McCain appeared on stage, a local talk radio host, Bill Cunningham, was among the speakers who warmed up the crowd. In his remarks, Cunningham used Obama’s middle name — Hussein — several times, and said: “Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change.”

At least one other speaker took the stage after Cunningham and before McCain. After his speech, McCain raised the issue with reporters before they questioned him about it.

McCain said he wasn’t in the building when Cunningham spoke, but he was made aware of them at some point.

McCain said:

“I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them. My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign.”

“I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them.”

When reporters asked McCain about Cunningham’s use of Obama’s middle name, he said: “No, it is not [proper]. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.”

Later, on his radio show, Cunningham complained that McCain “threw me under the bus to the national media.”

Here’s the full AP story. And here’s a Los Angeles Times story.

Barack Obama
An unpaid but high-level foreign policy adviser to Obama resigned after she called Clinton a “monster” who “is stooping to anything” to win the nomination. “You just look at her and think: Ergh.”

The adviser, Harvard Prof. Samantha Power, made the comments during an interview with a Scottish newspaper while on a publicity tour in London for her latest book.

When she resigned, Power apologized to Clinton and Obama for her “inexcusable remarks.”

Obama’s campaign announced Power’s resignation, but Obama himself has said nothing. Instead, the campaign issued a statement from spokesman Bill Burton that said, “Sen. Obama decries such characterizations, which have no place in this campaign.”

Here’s a New York Daily News story.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
On Friday, the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif. reported that Geraldine Ferraro, the former congresswoman, vice presidential candidate and current Clinton supporter and fundraiser, said:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

AP reported that in an interview today, Clinton was asked about the comments and replied: “I do not agree with that…It’s regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal.”

News reports say that Obama’s campaign called on Clinton to cut Ferraro’s ties to her campaign. David Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters: “The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you’re really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes.”

Here’s the AP story. And here’s an ABC News report, including a video of a TV interview with Clinton.

There you have it: Three examples of remarks that crossed the line. Three repudiations, but each done in a different way.

How do you think each candidate handled the situation?

Now that Sen. John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, the key question is whether he can mend the rift with the party’s conservative base.

In today’s story, reporter Kevin Duchschere explores that question.

One of the more interesting findings is this poll released last week by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, which shows that whatever suspicions conservatives may hold about McCain, they aren’t likely to abandon him on Election Day.

In fact, this poll found that McCain has more support among Republicans than Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have among Democrats.

When asked about casting their vote in November, 75 percent of Republicans said they “would definitely” vote for McCain. But among Democrats, only 65 percent said they “would definitely” vote for Obama, and 63 said that for Clinton.

And among Democrats, 16 percent say they would never vote for Obama, and 18 percent say the would never vote for Clinton. But among Republicans, only 6 percent say they would never vote for McCain.

The poll does seem to confirm that Republicans disagree more with McCain than Democrats do with Obama and Clinton.

Asked about the candidates’ positions on the issues, 62 percent of Democrats said Obama’s positions were “about right,” and 69 percent felt that way about Clinton.

Among Republicans, only 51 percent said McCain’s positions were “about right,” while 10 percent said they were “too conservative” and 33 percent said they were “not conservative enough.”

But these policy disputes don’t seem to be translating into any form of punishment by either staying home on Election Day or voting outside the party.

What do you think? Is McCain too conservative or not conservative enough? And to conservatives: Will you stick with McCain in November?

Colleague Jill Burcum was watching Leno last night when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s name was invoked in a head-scratching moment. Here’s her account:

Minnesota’s governor was a surprise - and wrong - answer Thursday night on Battle of the Jaywalk All-Stars, a running skit on Jay Leno’s late night talk show that features regular people duking it out in a gameshow format testing their trivia knowledge.

The gag is that these folks are chosen because they’re really uninformed. On Thursday night, for example, none of the three contestants could identify which Italian city is famous for its canals.

But Contestant #1, Jessica, knew her Minnesota governors. Sort of.

Shown a picture of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Jessica thought hard and came up with this: Puhlenty?

To which Leno responded: Plenty?

No, no, said Jessica. Paw-lenty, accent heavy on the Paw.

Leno didn’t make the connection between McCain and his potential Minnesota running mate.

Jessica didn’t offer up anything else as to why she knew Pawlenty’s name or thought he was McCain. But she went on to win the show, anyway, scoring an impressive comeback by linking Einstein to the theory of relativity.

Even though he’s the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain has a lot of work to do to win over conservatives. Today’s story in the New York Times may give him a big boost in that regard.

The Times story implies, but never outright alleges, that McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist. That’s the juicy element of a long story raising questions about McCain’s ethics and his ties to lobbyists.

Bloggers on the right are up in arms over the story, ripping it as baseless and a smear job. Here’s a sample of the reaction, starting with two Minnesota-based bloggers.

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters:

The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing — only innuendo denied by all of the principals.

John Hinderaker at Power Line (posted Wednesday night):

The New York Times smears John McCain in tomorrow’s paper, accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It’s mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The “news” that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain’s friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence.

From Allahpundit on Hotair:

A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.

Right Wing Nut House, by Rick Moran:

The story “alleging ‘impropriety’ on the part of John McCain with a female lobbyist has several different angles to it but basically, it comes down to a story about sexual infidelity – a perfect start to the Times effort to smear McCain.

That’s what the Times is peddling. And it is why they decided to run the story despite the fact that the legitimate issues they raise about McCain doing the bidding of this lobbyist is so thin that it’s damn near invisible.

Sister Toldjah:

I have no problems with his role in the Keating Five being discussed. It’s part of his political career, and one he will have to always answer for. But the insinuations that he had an affair with a lobbyist are the gutter type politics you’d expect to find on an opinion piece, partisan website, or blog, not a mainstream news outlet.

And here’s a comment from the Left.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it’s had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on ‘behaving inappropriately’ but then, doesn’t it always?) and promised to shape up…

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn’t know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I’ve learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Equally telling, though, is the McCain camp’s response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It’s all bluster.)

Here’s what the polls are saying on the weekend before Super Tuesday.

First the Republicans. Sen. John McCain continues to run strong and, if the polls reflect the actual results, he’s likely to win far more delegates than Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.

Of the 11 Super Tuesday states with recent polls, McCain leads or is in a dead heat in 10 of them. The only one he seems certain to lose is Massachusetts, where former Gov. Romney holds a 25-point lead.

Romney generally runs second to McCain, except in three southern states — Missouri, Oklahoma and Alabama — where Huckabee is running a close second to the Arizona senator.

In the five winner-take all state with current polling, McCain leads in all them.

In New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52) and Connecticut (27), McCain is up by more than 20 points.

In his home state of Arizona (53 winner-take-all), in Illinois (70), and in Oklahoma (41) he leads by more 10 points. And in Missouri (58 winner-take-all), he’s ahead of Huckabee by 7 points.

California, with 173 delegates at stake, is essentially a dead heat. That’s good news for Romney, who had been trailing in the polls. But surveys since the GOP debate at the Reagan Library in California last Wednesday have been either a tie or well within the margin of sampling error, indicating that Romney has been surging.

Romney also has a good chance of picking up some of the smaller (delegate count) states in the west, including Utah, Montana and perhaps Colorado.

Currently, McCain leads in the delegate race, with 93 won so far. Romney has 77 and Huckabee has 40.

On the Democratic side, the “national primary” looks extremely close between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

They are each running well ahead in the states they represent in the Senate — Clinton in New York and Obama in Illinois (Clinton’s native state). But Obama is running stronger in New York (trailing by 20 points) than Clinton is in Illinois (where she trails by 30 points).

That’s important because Democrats apportion all their delegates based on each candidate’s vote total in a state, so Obama stands to win a fair amount of New York’s 281 delegates. Illinois has 185 delegates at stake.

Georgia (103 delegates) is the only other state that Obama holds a significant lead, nearly 15 points.

Clinton, meanwhile, enjoys double-digit leads in Tennessee (85 delegates) and Massachusetts (121), although it’s unclear whether the Sen. Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements will boost Obama in the state.

In the other states with recent polling, the gap between Obama and Clinton is 6 points or less — meaning that they’re essentially dead heats. Those states are Connecticut (60), Missouri (88), Alamaba (60) and Arizona (67).

Ditto for the most delegate-rich state — California, with 441.

The fact that California is a toss-up shows that the momentum is shifting to Obama. As late as a couple of weeks ago, Clinton had double-digit leads in most California polls.

Currently, Clinton leads in the delegate race. Although Obama has won more pledged delegates in state primaries and caucuses (63 to Clinton’s 48), Clinton has more delegates supporting her thanks to the endorsements of Superdelegates (party leaders, members of Congress and the like). AP has Clinton at 261 total delegates, and Obama at 190.

There was lot to chew on from tonight’s GOP debate, but let’s focus on the main point of disagreement between Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Who do you agree with on the question of whether Romney favored a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq?

This question surfaced days before Florida voted, and it flared up in the debate. McCain argues that Romney supported timetables when, in April, as President Bush was about to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Malaki, Romney said Bush and Iraqi leaders “have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about” in private.

The comment came during an interview on Good Morning America by Robin Roberts.

Here’s the conversation.

ROBERTS: “Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?”
ROMNEY: “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.”
ROBERTS: “So, private. You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?”
ROMNEY: “Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.”

Romney says now that he was referring to benchmarks that would need to be met before troops are withdrawn, and that McCain is twisting his words.

In the debate, Romney said McCain raised the allegation only days before Florida’s vote, deliberately leaving him no time to respond and correct the misinformation. McCain’s action “sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible,” Romney said tonight.

McCain insisted that his interpretation was correct. He also criticized Romney for declining to take a stand on the timetable question when he was asked about it in December 2006 — taking a pass on the grounds that he was just a governor.

McMain reminded everyone that this happened right after Democrats won sweeping victories in the 2006 election, and timetable was the Democratic buzzword.

McMain said that he put his political career on the line by rejecting timetables, pushing for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s removal and advocating the troop-level surge, because he was certain those steps were the right things to do.

McCain’s point is that he proved his courage, leadership and acumen on Iraq while Romney at best dodged the issue and, according to McCain, actually endorsed setting timetables. (Here’s McCain’s press release supporting his argument.)

This is a classic case of the facts not being in dispute. Romney is correct that he never talked about a date or a specific timeframe for withdrawal, like many Democrats were. But McCain is also correct in saying that he has been clear and unwavering on the topic, and that Romney has been less so.

So how would you referee this dispute? Who’s telling the truth, or is at least closest to it?

Just a few weeks ago, Super Tuesday was looking like it might leave the GOP presidential race just as muddied as it has been for weeks. But now, that “national primary” is looking more and more like the day that Sen. John McCain builds a commanding lead in the race for the Republican nomination.

In the most important Super Tuesday states, McCain is riding high.

Nowhere is that more evident than in New York. Once conceded to Rudy Giuliani, the state now appears to be solidily behind McCain. This USA Today/Gallup Poll shows McCain 19 points ahead of Giuliani and 23 points ahead of Mitt Romney. And that was before the tailwind that McCain presumably will get as he leaves Florida.

Sen. John McCain celebrates Florida win

The key thing to remember is that New York, like Florida, is a winner-take-all state — and it’s the biggest winner-take-all on Super Tuesday. With a win in New York, McCain would collect 101 delegates — or nearly a tenth of the number of delegates needed for nomination.

McCain is leading in polls in other key winner-take-all states.

New Jersey polls show McCain with a slim edge over Giuliani — but with a 2-to-1 or even nearly a 3-to-1 margin over Romney. If Giuliani quits the race, McCain should cruise to an easy win in New Jersey, and claim all 52 delegates.

McCain’s state of Arizona is also voting, and it’s also winner-take-all, with 53 delegates. Connecticut means 27 delegates for the winner, and McCain is ahead there, too.

California is the biggest state on Super Tuesday, with 173 delegates, and McCain has been holding a steady lead in polls there for weeks. California apportions delegates among the candidates, so McCain and Romney are likely to split most of those delegates between them.

In other Feb. 5 states that have recent polling:

– McCain enjoys significant leads in Illinois (70 delegates) and Oklahoma (41).
– Romney leads in Colorado (46) and Massachusetts (43).
– Mike Huckabee leads in Georgia (72) and Tennessee (55).
– There’s a virtual tie in Missouri (58 winner-take-all) and Alabama (48) between McCain and Huckabee.

What this seems to add up to is the very real possibility that McCain could win hundreds of more delegates on Super Tuesday than Romney and Huckabee.

But that could still leave him well short of the 1,191 needed to win the nomination.

On the one hand, it would give him the biggest claim on the nomination. On the other hand, if Huckabee wins Missouri’s 58 delegates and scores big wins in the southern states, and if Romney does well in the midwestern and western states, could they still have enough muscle to block McCain’s nomination?

And if they thought they might be able to block his nomination, would they try to do so? Or would they urge the nomination of McCain for the sake of a unified front against the Democratic nominee?

On the eve of Florida’s primary, Rudy Giuliani’s legs are showing signs of buckling. Starting with tomorrow’s winner-take-all contest in Florida, Giuliani faces an eight-day stretch that could make or break his candidacy.

He’s been a non-factor in each of the states that have held primaries or caucuses so far, collecting only a single delegate, according to the Associated Press count.

And now, if the polls in Florida prove to be accurate, he’s going to finish third at best and would head into Super Tuesday with a growing sense of doom.

AP Photo

It’s been a stunning collapse for the one-time frontrunner. Here are a few stats to put it in perspective.

In 41 polls taken by a dozen different pollsters between early March and the end of November last year, Giuliani led in every one.

In most of those polls, his lead was in the double digits.

In April, he recorded a 23-point lead over the field.

Now, McCain and Romney are tied, and Giuliani is trailing them by about 10 points.

Florida is a winner-take-all state, meaning that someone will walk away 57 delegates richer. (Florida normally would have twice that many delegates, but half were stripped by the national party because the state scheduled its primary too early.)

With one delegate so far — won last Saturday in Nevada — a Giuliani win in Florida would instantly resuscitate his campaign — putting him only one delegate behind the GOP leader — Mitt Romney with 59 delegates.

Perhaps more important, a Florida win could help Giuliani hold off John McCain in New York and New Jersey on Feb. 5’s Super Tuesday. Those two winner-take-all states hold a total of 153 delegates (101 in N.Y. and 52 in N.J.).

Earlier, those two states were seen as Giuliani strongholds, and the lynchpin of his Super Tuesday strategy. Now, Giuliani and McCain are running even in those two states in recent polls.

If Giuliani can win Florida and then New York and New Jersey, and does reasonably well in other Super Tuesday states, he could possibly emerge with the most delegates.

If he loses those three big states, it’s hard to see how his candidacy survives.

So, before Giuliani bows out, here are a choice readings.

Here’s the New York Times editorial (registration required) endorsing McCain and describing Giuliani as “a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square… Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.”

And here’s a NYT story exploring that vindictive streak.

And here’s a case made on Townhall.com for Fred Thompson supporters to back Giuliani in Florida because he most closely aligns with Thompson on key issues.

And finally, much has been written and said recently about Giuliani’s Super Tuesday national-primary strategy, leaving the impression that that was his plan from the start. But this column by the Baltimore Sun’s Washington Bureau Chief makes the case that Giuliani did not initially plan on banking on a win in Florida — and that he, in fact, campaigned doggedly in the early states, but simply was rejected by voters.

Before the voting started, the consensus was that the presidential nominations would be settled by the earlier-than-ever Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.

Now, with that day fast approaching, it’s looking more and more likely that nothing will be settled on Super Tuesday — in either party.

Because the 24 states voting that day have widely divergent demographics and interests, and because the delegate-distribution rules tilt toward apportioning them — rather than winner-take-all — it’s hard to see how any candidate in either party would secure the nomination that night.

At best, a candidate may take a commanding lead — but perhaps still be only about halfway to locking up the number of delegates needed for the nomination.

Here’s a look at the key rules and some possible scenarios in each party’s race on Super Tuesday.

The Democrats
There are 22 states holding Democratic primaries or caucuses, plus American Samoa and Democrats Abroad get to pick delegates, too. All totaled, there are 1,697 pledged delegates up for grabs that day, according to the AP. (That does not count the unpledged, superdelegates those states also have, but who are not selected through the Super Tuesday voting.)

The biggest states are California (370 pledged delegates), New York (232), Illinois (153) and New Jersey (107). Minnesota is the seventh largest state that day (72 pledged delegates, tied with Missouri).

In each state, 75% of the delegates are chosen at the congressional district (or lower) level, and the rest are at-large.

Also, any candidate who receives at least 15% of the vote collects delegates. You can read the rules here.

So, in order to analyze Super Tuesday, you’d need to do a congressional-district-by-congressional-district calculation.

Looking at the broad picture, Hillary Rodham Clinton should do well in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. She’s also been leading in California.

Barack Obama should win Illinois and likely will win run strong in southern states like Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. He also has been opening a network of field offices in mid- and smaller-sized states, including Minnesota. So he might do well in the string of midwestern and western states, countering much of Clinton’s success in the bigger states.

John Edwards should be competitive in the southern states and presumably will collect delegates in many of the midwestern and western states.

An excellent, state-by-state analysis on the Daily Kos, reaches this conclusion:

– Clinton wins 819 delegates.
– Obama wins 763.
– Edwards wins 92.

So where would that put things by the end of the night?

The AP has been tracking endorsements by superdelegates and, with the states that have voted to date, Clinton has about 200 delegates (mostly superdelegates), Obama has about 100 and Edwards has more than 50.

If the Daily Kos analysis is close to accurate, Clinton would pass the 1,000 delegate mark, Obama would have close to 900 and Edwards would have about 150.

Under this scenario, Clinton wouldn’t even have half the 2,025 delegates needed for nomination.
And more than 40 percent of the delegates would still be up for grabs as the remaining states take their turn all the way until early June.

As the Kos analysis says, this would put us in an unprecedented situation, at least in recent decades, with two candidates neck-and-neck — and a third candidate holding enough delegates to tip the balance between the other two.

The Republicans
If you think the Democratic race is tough to figure out, wait until you see the Republicans’ rules and scenarios.

First, the facts: 21 states, 1,059 delegates. Same big states as the Democrats, and Minnesota, too.

But unlike the essentially uniform Democratic rules, the Republican delegate-selection rules vary from state to state.

A key difference is that 10 states are winner-take-all, including two of the biggest states — New York and New Jersey. All totaled, those 10 states have 419 delegates, or about a fifth of all delegates up that day.

But the remaining states have a hodgepodge of rules, from Massachusetts with statewide proportional to Tennessee with proportional distribution at the district level (unless the district winner exceeds 50%, in which it’s winner take all) plus a proportional distribution of at-large/bonus delegates (unless the winner exceeds 50% statewide, in which case it’s winner take all for those delegates).

Like the Democrats, it’s hard to see any of the leading Republicans running away with it on Super Tuesday. The mix of rules and the scattering of states in different regions of the country seems to preclude that.

One real possibility is the resurgence of Rudy Giuliani. This is the day his national strategy succeeds or fails. He could very well win the combined 153 delegates in winner-take-all New York and New Jersey. Throw in Connecticut, and he wins 180 delegates. And if he does well in Florida on Jan. 29, he could be back among the frontrunners.

Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson should collect a lot of southern delegates, although John McCain could do well among the military veterans and moderates in those states, as he did in winning South Carolina.

Mitt Romney should do well in some of the western states.

And right now, McCain is leading in California polls. In addition, his state, Arizona, is voting on Super Tuesday.

The upshot is that if there’s a fairly even division of delegates on that day, we could have a situation where no GOP candidate has more than about a quarter of the 1,191 delegates needed for nomination.

I haven’t seen a current, detailed, state-by-state analysis of the Republican Super Tuesday race, like Kos has for the Dems. If anyone is aware of one, please share it.

In the meantime, Super Tuesday is shaping up a fascinating day, but perhaps not the day of decision that it initially appeared to be.

I’ll close by passing along this summation of Super Tuesday by my colleague Will Tacy, editor of StarTribune.com: “It’s all crazy and the Republicans’ process is even crazier than the Democrats’ and trying to predict anything makes your head hurt.”

Even so, anyone game for making predictions — for Super Tuesday and beyond?