Running Primaries Thread

He'll endorse Huckabee next week.

 

Texas is going to be a delegate split. The way they apportion favors Obama in this election.

As I think I said before, it takes a BIG split in the popular numbers to change the down the middle split in a congressional district. Not good for HRC.

Also, I've read twice now that delegates are assigned based on turnout from the previous primary, and that turnout from the heavily Latino districts where HRC is now concentrating was very poor last time around. So even where she might be able to get 65 percent or so and take a big chunk, the chunk won't be as big as it will be in the Obama stronghold districts in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and Austin.

Add in the fact that the final third of the delegates will be awarded via caucuses that will be held in different locations -- EDIT: In June -- and you have a very interesting scenario.

HRC could win the popular vote by something like 55-45, but only break even -- or even lose -- the delegate race.

Texas cannot save the Clinton campaign. If she loses Wisconsin and Hawaii this week, she's backed herself into a corner that it's going to be all but impossible to get out of.

 

Excellent work.

 

It's straight talk like this that's brought Mitt aboard.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/14/mccains_rewrite_of_his_antirum.html

 

With Romney's endorsement, McCain has a chance to win the nomination now!

Seriously, what does this really accomplish, aside from make Romney look like a graceful loser? I'm guessing all he wants is to keep himself in the Republican good graces for 2012.

 

Keep talking, Bill. Somewhere, there's someone on Earth who doesn't think you're an asshole, yet.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/bill-clinton-un.html

Of his wife's recent travails, he said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

(An interesting description of caucus voters, and upper-income voters, to say the least.)

"I think she has been the underdog ever since Iowa," Clinton said. "She’s had, you know, a lot of the politicians, like Senator Kennedy, opposed to her. She’s had, the political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I've never seen this before."

He said they'd done well considering their slim budget. "We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring," he said.

He did not mention that his wife's campaign has raised more than $140 million.

He, in one paragraph, mocks the "upper-income" voters in places like Iowa, Maine, Nebraska and Idaho, and then claims that HRC's campaign has done well "on a shoestring" of $150-$175 million?

I wonder if the wealthy elites who decide caucuses in Kansas and Colorado think $150 million is a shoestring budget?

 

Yeah, the media focusing on the young, inexperienced candidate who is a dynamic speaker and represents a generational shift didn't happen in 1992, did it Bill?

 

The guy's the greatest pure politician I've ever seen (and that's no fanboi talking), but he's chipping away at his own legacy, week by week . . . with a meat cleaver.

 

I don't see how Romney is any move viable in 2012. He'll still be a wishy-washy, Mormon billionaire who can't corral a strong Republican base.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. He's attempting to secure himself a job in the party for a long time -- whether it's 2012 presidential nominee or just a nice, cushy job as the chair of the GOP party.

 

WFW.

He sounds like a cheap hack more with every passing day.

 

I expect him to use the word "misremembers" before too long.