Another minor annoyance with coverage of the presidential races is how who "wins" a state and who "loses" is actually defined.
With tonight's results it's quite obvious that Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire right? After all, she got 39 percent of the Democrat primary vote while Obama only garnered 37 percent.
Not really. The two candidates tied. Clinton walked out of New Hampshire with nine delegates, Obama racked up nine delegates. John Edwards got four delegates. The only real losers are Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel; but then everyone knows those three jamokes were losers before this race began...
Time to play a numbers game. Let's assume Obama got a landslide 44 percent of the vote and Clinton earned 36 percent, the reasonable overwhelming victory that political experts were predicting. It would have meant a shift of one delegate. With 4,049 Democratic delegates at stake nationally the desire by media types to coronate the Democrat presidential candidate based on the fortunes of one eventual vote at the convention is ridiculously absurd.
Throw in the state's "super delegates" - typically elected and DNC officials - and you wind up with a victory in New Hampshire for Obama; 12 to 11 to 4.
For the big picture, Clinton has 183, Obama 78 and Edwards 52. This kind of tells you the Clinton machine has a lot of elected officials and professional DNC cogs in it. But Obama has 25 elected delegates compared to Clinton's 24 and Edwards' 18. The race is wide open.
The same applies to the Republican stable.
The losers of Tuesday's race were certainly Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter who got nothing out of New Hampshire save for whatever souvenir Dixville doilies or scented bathroom soaps they might have picked up in their hotel rooms.
Mike Huckabee can now wear his I-campaigned-for-weeks-in-New Hampshire-and-all-I-got-is-this-lousy-delegate t-shirt. One delegate is always better than none though.
So that leaves John McCain and the presumed loser Mitt Romney. After all the handshakes, pancake breakfasts, baby kissing, glowering and menacing scowls McCain punched the tickets of seven delegates who are clambering aboard the Straight Talk Express. Romney gets four after spending more money than his campaign staff probably cares to talk about.
So if you've been watching the talking heads this arithmetic means Romney is on the ropes and should consider throwing in the towel. Except for the fact that he won Wyoming and got eight delegates from the Equality State. And eight is one more than seven the last time I counted.
The heck of it is that after three states, Romney is in the lead nationally. He has 30 delegates, compared to Huckabee's 21 and McCain's 10. Thompson has six, Paul two, Giuliani one and Hunter one. That's a total of 71 delegates out of 2,380 which will eventually be awarded. Guess it's time for candidates to start dropping out because the results of this race are inevitable.
These are the hard numbers. Obviously candidates win based more on popular perception on who is a front-runner, who is wounded and how fast voters stampede towards someone that looks like a winner.
Def: dopeler effect - The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Posted by: HillBill on January 9, 2008 05:32 AMYour entire post was trumped by this statement.
Posted by: Simon on January 9, 2008 05:37 AMDef: caterpallor - The color your turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
Posted by: HillBill on January 9, 2008 06:48 AMRomney should drop out because his strategy to concentrate on the early states didn't work out? Tell you what. In any business (yes, folks, a campaign is run like a business) you make mistakes and you learn from them. Romney will adapt because he is the best manager, best leader and richest person in the campaign. Don't write him off.
Note to Talking Heads: Don't write off Rudy either. He is still on his stratergery.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 06:51 AM...vote while Osama only garnered 37 percent...Posted by: Justin on January 9, 2008 07:19 AM
I have to admit though, whoever came up with the "lets get all emotional" ploy the day before polling in order to play to the female vote was pretty clever (sorry, but I just don't see it as being genuine). Probably the same person that taught Bill how to bite his lower lip to indicate he "feels our pain".
Posted by: Splinter on January 9, 2008 08:30 AMYahoo headline this morning and I imagine the livestock that gets their information via Yahoo Headlines will wring their hands while commiserating with their fellow morons about the "fact" that the - U.S. worst in health care.
The real tragedy is that the simple minded buffoons don't have what it takes to do a quick internet search and find out in which country the cancer survival rates are hightest and be able to connect the dots.
Here i have done it for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ALDQAFHLW3BERQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml
Posted by: JDH on January 9, 2008 08:34 AMI loved the two male hecklers at the Hill's press confab over the weekend. Truth be known they were paid by Bill a couple of hundred buck to toss some sexist drivel and spur the Pat Ireland crowd (the best $200 bucks he ever spent). And the Hill's tears? That tender moment deserves an Academy Award. Was I the only one who laughed so hard I peed my pants? Oh, the humanity of it all!
And don't you find it interesting that Romney is called a flip-flopper when his opinion on abortion has matured, but McCain is a man of principles when just after getting his immigration bill stuffed down his throat (pander bear is running for president at that time), he is now against illegal immigration and has "learned a lesson"? I find it duplicitous.
And the same goes for Huckabee will his ever evolving stands on foreign and domestic policies.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 08:49 AMYes, Paul is doing about what is expected. Many of the young tech types who support him have no idea of the history of this country and the civil rights era. There is a standard range of support for the ideas of the David Dukes so add many of the young who are begnin on issues of race with those of people who lean toward Duke and you get the support. Also, I think that there are those who want a third party to help Billary pumping up Paul added in.
Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2008 09:02 AMPerhaps her emotions were genuine, but I guess my problem is that, with the Clintons, you can never be sure. Everything about them seems to be poll-driven and rehearsed. Granted, I think Hillary (or just about anyone with a pulse) would do a better job than George W. Bush, but I really am not looking forward to another four years of payback and partisanship that we would get with another Clinton (or Edwards) Administration.
You said:
" I believe Hillary has this country at heart and just because she will approach running this country in a manner different than the 'good 'ol boy' approach does not mean that whe wont do a good job."
What do you base this statement on, other than your emotion?
Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2008 09:15 AM1. I have been married to my wife over ten years, she is great, but if she came up here and took the mike, you wouldn't think she was funny and he said just because the spouse of the pilot has been married to them 20 years, do you want the spouse flying your plane if they are not a pilot?
So, she didn't kill her horndog husband that shows restraint, not that she necessarily has the qualifications to be President. Rock is on target, being close to power is not the same thing as knowing how to excercise power. Bubba has the ability to compromise and triangulate. He and Reagan are the two best pols of the last 100 years.
2. Compared to the guys in the race who went through the system and earned their way there. She attached herself to a man and that is how she got power. I want to see a woman president, but at least you can say about Margaret Thatcher, she earned her way there. I love digging into my feminist pals who support Hillary because she really is just a clean version of Anna Nicole Smith, isn't she? You can't have it both ways, either you really kick butt like Thatcher or you really are Smith, Tammy Wynette and others. Showing remarkable restrainst in a domestic situation does not, in my mind, qualify her to be president. My two cents.
Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2008 09:37 AMMy problem with both parties IS this entire "game" type thinking. Leading America should not be a game and even using that term just shows me that we think of our politics as teams. Each party has a different philosophy, but it should not be about "getting" the other guy all the time. I vote based on who I think can do the best job of running the country, not what team they are on. What I find refreshing about Obama is that he at least is trying to appeal to all Americans, not just those on Team Democrat.
But what really disturbs me is the "Iron my shirt" shtick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsocCWiLh3s
This was a complete setup by the Clinton machine. You tell me how a guy gets into a tightly controlled venue with a sign like that. It just doesn't happen. If it was that easy, there would be a lot more of that stuff being done on both sides . . . and it's not. These are very controlled venues. They bus in the right people to hoot and hollar and only the Cool Aid drinkers get to the front row (where he was). "Iron my shirt" was complete scripted BS to get the feminestas (which she is losing) up in arms. And it worked pretty well.
Look how good Hillary handled it. Some complete stranger stands up and starts shouting and she says "Let's turn up the lights." She knew it was coming. He didn't sound very committed to whatever he was trying to communicate either.
If it wasn't a setup, what is the guy trying to say by yelling "IRON MY SHIRT!!!"? Makes no sense. It was a complete setup and by the look of things it worked pretty damned good.
However, where have you been? The economy has been rocking till lately when it appears the Ds will take over the presidency. The Bush tax cuts worked.
While there have been mistakes, Bush has been stalwart on foreign policy. I hope any successor can have such a good record when they are done. I doubt it, but who knows.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 10:06 AMPlease. The man is a grossly incompetent coward. At the first sign of agression from an outside force, he is the first to toss out or revise BASIC constitutional liberties and grab as much power as possible. "Yellow" comes to mind as the best way to describe the man.
You know damned well that if a Democrat had tried to grab half the power Bush has tried to grab, or made even a small fraction of his 'mistakes', you would be up in arms and demanding impeachment.
Posted by: Splinter on January 9, 2008 10:23 AMRegarding McCain and his immigration policy, as he pointed out he learned his lesson. It wasn't a case of changing a position in order to get elected, it was a case of coming to realize in what order the American people clearly wanted something done. Whereas Romney has clearly changed position and rhetoric (now that he is a fan of Reagan) to suit getting elected. That makes for a great politician but it also makes for exit polling numbers that show people don't trust him.
I'd like to point something out about both McCain, Romney and Thompson that really, really, made me sick. Did you notice what happened starting the day after Iowa? Every fricken third word out of the mouths of Romney, McCain and Thompson was the word "Change". It was the same with Clinton and Obama. Give me a fricken break, that just makes me sick to see the future President of the United States 'CHANGING' his/her tune based on opinion poll. DISGUSTING. At least Rudy and Huckabee laid low - for now - we'll see what happens.
This country is in a world of hurt if our next President decides on a whim that hey, polling says I'll be more liked if we (insert program here: offer $50 abortions, approve gay marraige, require universal healthcare, grant reparatations, give Iran nuclear plant plans so theirs would be safe, ban gas-powered cars etc.)
Posted by: Doug on January 9, 2008 10:24 AMBut, hey, I can change. I think Democrats should have the option/ability to help select the next President of the US. Since the Ds are "feel good" candidates, the President is now being selected in the R primary. For that reason, Democrats, bring it on and give us your opinions.
Well, Doug, wasn't it also during the last weekend debates that the moderators asked the candidates if they were "change" artists? Can't we just get rid of the press? The "journalists" are so clueless.
And yes, the word "change" out of the blue was sickening, but they had to address it. It is "silly" season after all.
Romney flip-flopped but McCain was pragmatic? Or McCain flip-flopped but Romney's opinion matured? I choose the latter, but actually, I consider neither a flip-flopper in the footsteps of the John Kerry.
McCain is losing my vote over immigration. I thought he was viable last summer till he led the charge.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 10:52 AMWe HAVE had plenty of time to judge her and the word 'surprise' doesn't cover it... a better description would be 'cold sweat, night terrors when someone pounds on your door in the dead of night'.
Slick Willie was in for the fun of it. He said and talked himself into beleiving whatever was necessary to climb the next rung of the power ladder.
Whoribillary is an unapologetic Marxist. She BELIEVES the 'common good' crap. She BELIEVES she is Lthe only lord and saviour of the USA. She BELIEVES only she can accomplish what all other failed socialist couldn't. I'm sure she weeps real tears at night that she wasn't born Marie Antoinette then reincarnated as Eva Perone
She is a dangerous, frightening one-woman communist government.
I truly hope she is the dim nominee.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 9, 2008 10:57 AMI'm waiting for the conservatives to realize that their immigration stance doesn't mesh with fiscal conservatism. I am appalled at how many 'conservatives' preach going after small businesses and big businesses in regards to immigration. More regulation, put the business owners in jail, it's the businesses responsibility, etc. Folks, there is a shortage of cheap labor in this country - hence the businesses are moving to other country's to get their labor supply. There is a shortage of cheap legal immigrant workers. There is an overabundance of regulations on small businesses.
The solution isn't to make the supply/demand equation for workers even more out of whack. There is a reason the fiscal conservative groups are asking for a comprehensive solution.
What part of the Republican base does the rampant anti-immigrant section fall into? I think it's some latent isolationist section or anti-Mexican faction, because it really isn't an evangelical point of view or one from fiscal conservatism, it's just there. It maybe one of those positions that is neither Republican nor Democrat, crosses party lines as a belief structure in itself. Immigration is just a stand alone subject. Reagan didn't know how to deal with it politically, no one really does, it has to be dealt with practically.
End result: There needs to be more legal immigrant workers in this country to satisfy the demand for such and there needs to be solid border security.
If it is the Republican establishment position that there are too many Mexicans in the U.S. and we should deport them all - well that's really a stupid position based on something other than the reality that there is a shortage of cheap labor in this country (due to regulation as well as supply).
Posted by: Doug on January 9, 2008 11:10 AMBushie-Chimp was in for the fun of it. He said and talked himself into beleiving whatever was necessary to climb the next rung of the power ladder.
Rudy (or Mitt or Huckabee or...) is an unapologetic Fascist. He BELIEVES the 'common threat' crap. He BELIEVES he is the only lord and saviour of the USA. He BELIEVES only he can accomplish what all other failed fascists couldn't. I'm sure he weeps real tears at night that he wasn't born Adolf Hilter then reincarnated as Saddam Hussien.
See how it works? :) So simple to be a partisan hack.
Posted by: Splinter on January 9, 2008 11:15 AMOur immigration department is worthless. They should be allowing more "legal" immigration, but you don't just give cards and more benefits to "illegals" and then let them become citizens.
Then, you need to stop the flow of illegals into the country with a fence.
Been to LA lately? The illegals own that town. That what you want? That is what you would have kept with McCain-Kennedy.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 11:22 AMAll polling has shown the American people want to border problem fixed. And yes that means going after people who do not belong here.
where have you been.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 9, 2008 11:28 AMRon Paul Supporters: Did They Disappear Or Are They Just Regrouping?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 9, 2008 11:36 AMS/A jungle??????????
What? We left that place in the 1970's.. I was there too.
What he's trying to relive his younger days. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 9, 2008 11:47 AMWell...we waited for Iowa. We waited for New Hampshire.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 9, 2008 11:56 AMI think the HOT air just came out of Ron Paul gang.
Many have been asking questions about some of the support he's been getting. I guess this now proves that RP as courting the weird groups!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 9, 2008 12:00 PMhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NATION/992492919/-1/RSS_FP
or you can go to orbusmax.com for another link.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2008 12:44 PMthat is correct grasshopper however, some are working animals and some graze from the work of others
Posted by: Simon on January 9, 2008 01:01 PMI'll remind you once again, Federal law is very clear, the act of an alien illegally entering the U.S. is a MISDEMEANOR offense. Federal law grants the penalty of a FINE. While I don't agree completely with the comprehensive plans offered up, it does make perfectly good sense legally, that any alien here illegally could pay a fine and then become documented - assuming of course there is a need for more legal immigrants (which there is) and assuming it is a first offense.
The immigration solution based on current law is pretty clear: Beef up the borders first. Create a type of 'AMNESTY (which as shown in the first paragraph really isn't the case)' program whereby illegals register and pay their fine - and certain ones deported if that is the case. Increase the number of legal immigrant workers by 12 million (or whatever the number is that the anti-immigrant folks believe is the number taking away jobs from Americans that Americans won't do) and this could be by legalizing those who have paid for their crime - hey it's what we expect from the American system once you paid your debt to society.
Finally, change the bloody law so that illegal immigration is a felony. You do realize that under current law these illegal immigrants who have only committed the misdemeanors still are allowed to earn citizenship? If it becomes a felony, they couldn't.
Instead, what do we have? A bunch of rabid, foaming mouth conservatives bad talking the candidates who actually have approaches that follow current law, in favor of whichever Republican candidate that can spout the loudest fire from their mouths against the illegals.
Posted by: Doug on January 9, 2008 03:34 PMThere you go again, playing the socialist card. Hillary != Chavez/Putin.
"Yes, Paul is doing about what is expected. Many of the young tech types who support him have no idea of the history of this country and the civil rights era."
So your saying that Tech Workers are racist by association because they give money to Paul. That's like saying Pres. Bush is a felon because he was visited several times by Jack Abramoff during his first term.
And working with a stolen social security number is identity theft, and working under the table without a social security number is tax fraud. If they are doing neither then they are not earning a living and are misusing welfare, health care and other benefits. They are also endangering the health of U.S. citizens since they are not health screened before entering the country.
By all means, increase the number of LEGAL immigrants that are allowed in the country--based on the education and skills WE, as a country, need. Don't give people who came here illegally benefits above and beyond those that have been waiting to come in the country legally. And what has been offered does not put them "at the back of the line". There are many, many people OUTSIDE the country that didn't come here illegally that would love to take the deal that McCain, Bush, et al. were offering to the illegals.
Posted by: Bill H on January 9, 2008 03:51 PMWe've had 7, going on 8 years of the chief law enforcer either choosing to ignore, or lacking the ability to do their job and enforce the law.
Who's fault then is it for the situation we're in today?
Posted by: BA on January 9, 2008 06:04 PMAll that is true, but as far as the Feds are concerned, they can charge an illegal alien with a misdemeanor. To go after them for working illegally they would have to have proof and all the stuff they need to go after an American citizen if they think they are committing a crime - Hence how many of the 12 million illegals get into trouble for working illegally?
A practical solution is in order. If that means fining them, increasing the amount of legal immigrant workers and having the illegals that paid their fine to stand back in line to get a worker's permit - that's one way to do it. However, under current law, the act of entering the country illegally is still just a misdemeanor punishable by a fine for a first offense. I don't even want to figure out if there is a statue of limitation on the crime, maybe there is, I haven't checked.
But, they can make it a felony for future illegal crossings, however, those that have done so thus far are on the hook for a misdemeanor.
Posted by: Doug on January 9, 2008 09:00 PMClinton came in third in the state delegate count, but second in the national delegate count (because she picked up one district that has an extra delegate or something).
Posted by: pudge on January 9, 2008 10:38 PM"So your saying that Tech Workers are racist by association because they give money to Paul. That's like saying Pres. Bush is a felon because he was visited several times by Jack Abramoff during his first term."
No, I am saying that many in this country are ignorant of the civil rights struggle. Some actually are racist. But, racists come in all colors, religions, and occupations. Some party leaders of both parties are racist.
I don't know if you ever watch Leno's Jaywalking segments? This country has so dumbed down education and through grade inflation, we have a generation of people that are ignorant. If you want an interesting book to read, Dictionary of Cultural literacy. Most Americans are clueless about a lot of their history.
Which is controled by the Gov/NEA & unions.
So what in the heck would make you think your government run health care would be any better or safer!
If you have a plan other than what we have, put it on the table. If you want to eliminate what we currently have, put it on the table. Right now all you are saying is what is the status quo is bad, so replace it with what? Whether you choose to stand in place or not, here is what is going to happen. The dems will put some sort of health care plan on the table. You can criticize it, call them socialist and stomp your feet. The electorate will either vote them in or not. Most likely the electorate will vote them in because they want health care. Guess what, after the dems are in office, you'll just be angry. You can either play the political game, or not. Your choice.
Posted by: WVH on January 10, 2008 10:14 AMI don't agree. It reminds me of the 2 poll questions about how satisfied you are with your life and what direction you think the country is going.
Last poll, +86% were very satisified with their lives... but more than half thought the country is going to hell in a handbasket. The 2 results are at odds with each other. People love their lives but think their neighbors are failures. BUT people tend to vote on their personal experience, NOT because lefty politicians have convinced them vague unknown neighbors need something from their pockets.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 10, 2008 12:41 PM