Sorry with the math. The first tally should read 1.05 million, not 1.35 million. Duh!

Posted at May 24, 2008 1:38 AM in response to Bush-McCain Fundraiser Scaled Back Due To Lack Of Takers

Here's something I've been gnawing on for a few months, and have yet to see any pundit mention it. Democrats have been showing up to vote in the primaries in record numbers, while Republicans have been staying home. It's not even close.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

All of my numbers come from MSNBC, and I assume they are correct. Let's take a few states that typically go red, and see how the primaries went (not including states where on party had a caucus and the other had a primary election, apples to apples):

Georgia:
Obama 700,366 66%
Clinton 328,129 31%
Edwards 17,990 2%
------------------
1.35 millions votes cast by dems

Huckabee 326,069 34%
McCain 303,639 32%
Romney 289,737 30%
Paul 27,978 3% 0
Giuliani 7,039 1%
--------------------
940,000 votes cast by reps

Kansas:
Obama 27,172 74%
Clinton 9,462 26%
Edwards 53 0%
Uncommitted 8 0%
-----------------
36,600 votes by dems

Huckabee 11,627 60%
McCain 4,587 24
Paul 2,182 11%
Romney 653 3%
Uncommitted 84 0%
--------------------
18,000 votes cast by reps

Kentucky:
Clinton 459,124 65% 37
Obama 209,778 30% 14
Uncommitted 18,059 3%
-------------------------
688,000 votes by dems

McCain 142,826 72% 0
Huckabee 16,344 8% 0
Paul 13,419 7% 0
Uncommitted 10,756 5%
Romney 9,210 5% 0
Giuliani 3,057 2% 0
Keyes 2,046 1%
------------------------
Not even close

The pattern goes on an on. Dems having been going to the polls in numbers ranging from 50% to 100% over their republican counterparts! Why doesn't the MSM report this? They love a horse race. If they told everyone it was going to be a blowout, the republicans would blow a gasket and pull out the old liberal-bias standup routine.

I don't think we have anything to worry about. As long as Hillary doesn't destroy the party in the next month, McCain stands almost no chance of winning.

Posted at May 24, 2008 1:36 AM in response to Bush-McCain Fundraiser Scaled Back Due To Lack Of Takers

I'm going to go with Richardson, and it's not just because I'm from New Mexico. He's got a fabulous resume and an outstanding record of accomplishment as Governor: Balanced budget, health insurance for all children in the state, a brand new light rail system connecting Albuquerque and Santa Fe, among others.

If you want to beat John McCain at the foreign policy game, Richardson is the trump card.

Sure he's got a few skeletons in his closet; He supposedly claimed that he was scouted for the major leagues as a college pitcher, when apparently he wasn't. Then there's a woman who claims Richardson made sexual remarks to her or something. If they aren't big enough stories to make the local news, their probably non-issues for the general election.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:00 PM in response to Rules of Thumb for selecting Obama's VP

I wonder how these polling firms can even publish these numbers with a straight face?

Didn't Democrats show up to the polls on Super Tuesday by a 2 to 1 margin, when compared to Republicans? I seem to remember the numbers went something like 15.2 million dems casted votes while 7 million reps pulled the lever. If we're showing up at the polls in twice the numbers, don't these polls seem outrageous?

I just don't see the Republicans getting all worked up about McCain in the same way the did with GWB in 2000 and 2004. Back then I half expected people to start speaking in tongues, handling serpents and chanelling spirits when GWB spoke at a campaign rally. McCain.... Not so much.

It's time that sombody put their foot down. And that foot is me.

Posted at May 23, 2008 10:33 PM in response to GOP Sen. Elizabeth Dole Barely Ahead -- In GOP Poll