The Smarter You Are, the Less Likely You Are to Vote for Trump (I have proof!)

I never thought I'd say coming in second, and even third place, is a great victory, but for ‪#‎TeamMarco‬, it is. I'm thrilled with his results tonight. 
Something very interesting to note about the VA returns. Rubio won Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Prince William, Fredericksburg City (but not Spotsy), Henrico, Richmond, Goochland, Radford, Albemarle, Chesterfield, James City, Winchester, and York counties. Notice anything interesting about those counties?
Let's reword it like this instead-
He won the homes of GMU, UVA, William and Mary, JMU, Patrick Henry College, Mary Washington U, Liberty University, Radford, VCU, Shenandoah Conservatory, Christendom College, and U of Richmond. (Not listed in same order as the counties.)  Not to mention all of the people who live in NoVA, but attend GWU, GU, and JHU, or are known for having post-graduate degrees.
Also known as the most affluent and educated counties in the state. Apparently, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to not vote for Trump!
It's interesting to also note that in Montgomery County, home of VA Tech, Rubio lost to Trump by a mere 29 votes. So we can sort of pretend that county followed suit too. (And after the final tallies have been truly certified, that number could possibly tip in Rubio's favor.)
(I'm a little disappointed that Rubio lost by nearly 1,000 in Roanoke County. However, he only lost by 200 in Roanoke City. Cruz had a stronger showing overall in the county than in most areas in the state.)
I applied my education theory to a few other states that I have some knowledge of as far as major universities go. It holds up in GA, NH, AR, SC, and IA. It didn't hold up in Massachusetts. I tried to apply it to AL, but the data was inconclusive and skewed due to a tornado touchdown in the specific counties I was interested in. And admittedly, I know nothing about Minnesota universities or counties. Texas went overwhelmingly for Cruz. 6 counties went to Trump. Notably, not one has a major educational institution in it. (Which is saying something. Texas has universities and colleges every 10 feet!) My knowledge of OK was also too limited, but I did see that at least in 1 of the 2 Rubio counties, there was a major state university!
So apparently the smarter you are, the less likely you are to vote for Trump! And now we have proof! 

Let's Take a Moment to Really Look at How Things Have Changed

The GOP is known as the old white man party. The elite, good old boys club that tries to rule the world with a selfish myopic eye.
So let's take a quick look at the current candidates for the GOP nomination-

Ben Carson- most obviously not a member of the old white man's party.
Marco Rubio - A Miami-born, Cuban American, the son of Cuban immigrants
Ted Cruz - his name is actually Rafael Edward Cruz, was born in Canada, to an asylum-seeking Cuban married to an American woman.
Donald Trump - okay, obviously he would be the poster for entitled, old white men. (But if you look at Cruz' background you'll discover he was pretty entitled as well.) But let's give him some credit for having married 3 different woman, Ivana born in Czechoslovakia , Marla, an American, and Melania from Slovenia. So while still an entitled old, white guy, he does have some international influence on this thinking
Jeb Bush- again, the ultimate in entitled white guys. But he is married to Columba, a Mexican woman.
And John Kasich- the only one of the candidates without an international, non-white familial connection.

When 2 of the candidates can spar on stage about speaking Spanish, this isn't your father's Republican party.

Why I Care Less and Less About Trump

I'm starting to care less and less about Donald Trump running for president. Why? Precedent.
It's taken me a while to remember who his predecessors are, but thankfully, he does have them.

Donald Trump isn't the first three ring circus candidate we've seen ride a very early wave. And all of them have crash and burned before things got real.

Take Rudy Giuliani for instance. Seven years since he ran for president it's hard to remember he was ever a contender. He was fun, he was exciting, and he was an "alternative" candidate to the usual suits, not unlike Trump. But after the fun of the shock and awe wore off, people remembered what they really want in a leader, and it isn't tantalizing soundbites.

Remember in 2011 when Rick Perry was so far ahead of Mitt Romney that no one thought Romney had a prayer?

And then there is the distant memory of Ross Perot. Good old Ross Perot with his pie charts. I was still in high school back then, and a die hard Republican. After watching Perot on TV with his charts and diagrams, I couldn't wait to turn 18 just to vote for him. (Alas, I turned 18 in January, and missed my chance to vote for him by just 2 months.) I interned on Capitol Hill (as a high school intern- really, it's a thing) that year. The congressman I worked for was firmly in the Perot camp. After all, his district had some of the strongest Perot turn out. I can still remember Perot personally calling the congressman one day, and somehow I answered the phone. I put Ross Perot on hold and sprinted down the hall to grab the congressman who was on his way to a meeting. It was the only time I've ever seen him look the tiniest bit frazzled or excited as he sprinted his way back to answer that call.

Anyway, you recall how Perot ended, right? In a Clinton presidency. Perot pulled just enough of the GOP base away (18%), that Clinton beat Bush the First. (Of course, "Read my lips, no new taxes," didn't help Bush much either.)

But more importantly, Perot ended as a third party so-called Reformer candidate. Perot and Trump have a lot in common- both are wealthy businessman, and both like to speak in plain, blunt terms, and don't worry about political correctness. My biggest fear is Trump will follow Perot's footsteps, and cause more harm than good to his party in the long run.

But maybe Trump will stay true to the Republican party? Maybe he he won't. Only time will tell. But precedent tells us he probably won't stand the test of time. 

Ted Cruz as Captain Kirk?

Senator Ted Cruz is a Star Trek fan. Possibly a delusional and ill-informed Star Trek fan. That's not a knock on Trekkies. That's a hit on Cruz. I'm a pretty big Trek fan (and overall sci fi fan) myself. Cruz could have won me over with slightly more accurate and interesting commentary. 

In a New York Times interview the presidential wannabe declared, "I think it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat."

Quote from the article: 

If you were a journalist interviewing, what would you ask? Who knows, I might well ask, "Kirk or Picard" I've never been asked that before, and I actually have a strong opinion on it. 
Well, that goes with being a Kirk person. It does indeed. Let me do a little psychoanalysis. If you look at "Star Trek: The Next Generation," it basically split James T. Kirk into two people. Picard was Kirk's rational side, and William Riker was his passionate side. I prefer a complete captain. To be effective you need both heart and mind.
I thought your critique might go in a different direction, because "Next Generation" is more touchy-feely in its politics than the original. No doubt. The original "Star Trek" was grittier. Kirk is working class; Picard is an aristocrat. Kirk is a passionate fighter for justice; Picard is a cerebral philosopher. The original "Star Trek" pressed for racial quality, which was one of its best characteristics, but it did so without sermonizing.
Do you have a suspicion about whether Kirk would be a Democrat or a Republican? I think it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat. 

He's flat out wrong. Even Shatner called Cruz out. 

(Shatner is Canadian.) 

But let's get serious here. 

Kirk is no Republican. He's a playboy who likes to save the day and revels in the glory. He's all about equal rights and free love, and will create those rights with a raygun as needed. Republicans have never been big on creating equal rights with military force. (They will defend existing beliefs with military force, but have never been ones to create new rights. It's just not their thing.) Kirk was all about expansion and the unknown. Republicans like to keep things close to home and traditional. 

Picard is not a Democrat either. He's a Lincoln Republican. He's a diplomat, well-read, and academic in his decisions. He wouldn't make a good politician, but he'd be a great U.N. ambassador, balancing the needs of different cultures so that everyone can live in peace and justice. 

Riker would be a Republican. He's all about defending his beliefs and isn't afraid to pull out a gun. 

Spock and Data would be Libertarians- straight up, unbiased, literal readings of the law without emotion. Spock would be great on the Supreme Court. You know, if he were human enough. 

But that's just my take on things. 

As one friend put it, "The entire argument is moot, albeit interesting; politics is the art of managing limited resources to fulfill unlimited wants. Both captains live in a world of unlimited resources."

He has a point. 

Now, if Cruz were to follow up his NY Times interview with a blog post further expounding upon his Star Trek rational, he could conceivably win over a few Trekkies. And considering his ranking in the polls this week, that couldn't possibly hurt. 

Click to enlarge. 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Did Romney and Republicans Go Wrong?

I’m just starting to come out of my cocoon of disavowal of Tuesday’s outcomes. I’m still a little behind and don’t know full facts and figures. (And I continue to like it that way.) But these two articles got me to thinking-

Why Romney was surprised to lose
Inside Orca: How the Romney Campaign Suppressed Its Own Vote

I admit there is a part of me that is still a little bitter over Team Orca. I was a part of it. I spent 13 hours working at the polls (freezing my butt off) on Tuesday.  I had a small glitch around noon, and a longer glitch around 6 pm. I had no trouble calling into the national number and getting assistance.

If the campaign knew full well that their system wasn’t working, why did they allow thousands of workers to stand out there and work? I worked for 13 hours and they weren’t getting any data from me? If the system wasn’t working and they had all those boots on the ground, why didn’t they call us in to the field offices to work the phones? Does any of that make sense to you that they would mismanage the usefulness of nearly 30,000 active volunteers? Something just doesn’t add up there.

Not to mention how it just doesn’t add up that Romney would have allowed something so crucial  as this web app to not get beta tested and proven first. I’m the last person ever to become a conspiracy theorist, but this really just doesn’t add up for me. None of it does.

Why would a campaign in the final minutes not throw a hail mary, redirect 20-30,000 volunteers, and do something?? If the app suddenly failed and you have all those dedicated volunteers, why didn't they correct course or change directions? Even if the command didn't come down from the headquarters, why didn't thousands of field offices (who supposedly may have known the apps were failing) not make the call?

Supposedly fewer people came out to vote for Romney than voted for McCain. How is that possible? I am very confused over this. Again, I’m not a conspiracy type, but it just doesn’t add up. It either means the numbers just have to be wrong, or there are a lot of people who really didn’t want to vote for the Mormon. They didn’t want to vote for Obama, but in the end they just couldn’t vote for the Mormon? Or that many people came out specifically to vote against Romney? Honestly, that feeling sickens me to the point of not knowing which one I would rather it not be- a rigged election or that much bigotry?

I am admittedly not a die-hard Republican. I’m far too libertarian on foreign policies. And I have wanted to see a stronger third party emerge for a while. I think the Tea Party ruined the GOP, and forced it to go too conservative. I also think the primaries are too focused on social issues, driven by the evangelical vote that is not effective in the national elections.

I want to see the party get divided. I want to see a liberal party, a moderate party, and the freak show conservative Tea Party. And I will admittedly be right in the middle of the moderates. I don’t like extremism either way and I believe in compromise, and neither party offers that. I really, really want social issues to get kicked to the states, and left out of the federal government. I think a third party could sell that better than the Republicans have so far. And I think a third more central party could bring a better sense of compromise to energy issues.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Arkansas and Kentucky Primaries Tonight

Just so no one thinks I really believe Arkansas is all bigots and rednecks, here's a picture of a pretty place I once visited when I had the great misfortune of living in that miserable state.

It will be a while before we can expect to see all-night election return coverage on the news networks. But politics junkies can still find coverage online when the want it.
Tonight, Tuesday night, Kentucky and Arkansas will take to the primary polls to choose between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. And possibly between Obama and a mystery write-in candidate in Arkansas. Contrary to the rumors, no, that person is not me. 
Romney still needs 800 delegates to clinch the nomination. Paul needs almost a thousand more. But you just keep trying, Rep. Paul! You're just the little engine that could, or couldn't. Probably couldn't. 
And here's a shocking piece of information- whichever Republican candidate wins Arkansas will probably be able to rely on getting all 6 of their electoral votes in the fall, as the state tends to be historically Republican.
I feel I should say something to acknowledge that hideous Washington Post article I already posted about to point out that at least 60 people in Arkansas are bigots that don't like Romney based solely on religion due to a scuffle 120 years ago. But that would just be a waste of my time, now wouldn't it?
As for the primaries, Arkansas has 36 total delegates; 33 tied to May 22 primary; 3 Unpledged RNC delegate. And Kentucky has 45 total delegates; 42 tied to May 22 primary; 3 Unpledged RNC delegates.
If you love politics just so much that you would want to follow the Arkansas and Kentucky returns online, Mashable has a list of them here for you.

Mitt and the Veep

Just me and my 2 cents on the VP-stakes

Now that we know it will be Mitt Romney on the November ballot, let's start talking about vice presidential options.
Over the weekend I had an interesting chat with some well-informed and educated family members about who we each thought might be possible VPs. I was very surprised that the men all picked white men. I am personally of the belief it will be anyone but a white male. The ticket has to be more interesting than that. The media already holds a grudge against Romney for being a well-educated, upper class, white male. (Although I've yet to figure out how being in the largest majority demographic in the country is such a bad thing.) I think Romney will get the rank and file Republicans, but it is the independent moderates that don't know where to go yet. It is that demographic in the middle that will be swayed by a "competitive," "attractive," or "historic" VP ticket. And that ticket probably won't include a white male.

So the contenders (as generally suggested by the media and armchair pundits)-

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Pros- Unique brand of charisma, smart, somewhat crass style provides enjoyable/needed contrast to clean cut Romney.
Cons-  Also from northeast, doesn't bring in a needed demographic, possibly too crass, also a white guy, he has stated his obesity may be an issue.

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
Pros- Not a white guy, from the much needed South.
Cons- Louisiana politicians have a cloud of corruption about them, but then, so do Chicago politicians and Obama got elected anyway. He only delivers 8 electoral votes, which is practically nothing. Not enough name recognition. 

Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Pros- Hispanic, well-liked, very conservative, 29 electorates, battleground state. Tea party loves him.
Cons- Tea party loves him. He's needed in the Senate. He's made it clear he's not interested. While he is Catholic now, he had Mormon ties as a child, and evangelicals will not be uniting behind a Catholic-Mormon anytime ever. 

Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia
Pros- Very well-liked within the party, big on jobs and the economy, delivers Virginia and its 13 electorates and a swing state.
Cons- White guy, lack of name recognition outside of party insiders and home state. Lots of other white guy, Republican, governors just like him. Romney is already big on jobs and economy. He needs someone who brings more to the table.

John Thune, Senator from South Dakota
Pros- Another Republican elected something from somewhere.
Cons- Just another white guy Republican from somewhere (JAWGRFS). No real name recognition. 3 electoral votes? Total joke.

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
Pros- Tea Party loves him, conservative, from a "blue state," decent name recognition thanks to the Tea Party, has "paid his dues," so to speak.
Cons- Boring! And yet again, JAWGRFS.

Paul Ryan, Senator from Wisconsin
Pros- Currently has good name recognition thanks to his current budget bill. Popular in the party and out of the party.
Cons- Must I say it again? JAWGRFS, but at least his somewhere is a swing state. Again, he's big and popular on the same things Romney is already big on.

Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina
Pros- Female, non-Caucasian, South, conservative, good name recognition.
Cons- She didn't deliver SC for Romney in the primaries, in spite of her major endorsement. Already a red state, not many electoral votes. 

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, tv host
Pros- Huge name recognition, conservative, brings the evangelical vote.
Cons- JAWGFS, serious bad blood between him and Romney in last election.

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
Pros- Female, non-Caucasian.
Cons- no name recognition. In fact, I know nothing to say about her.

Rick Santorum, former Senator of Pennsylvania, recent competition
Don't make me go there. It is always possible, but highly unlikely. Although he does deliver something besides jobs and economy I guess.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, current competition
You have to be kidding me, right?

If it were up to me, I'd pick Nikki Haley in a heartbeat. She's pretty, well-spoken, conservative, and a double threat minority. She's qualified and she's interesting. She brings something to the ticket. 

Who do I expect it will be? No clue.

On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin!

Tuesday will bring us the Wisconsin winner-take-all primary. The cheese heads have 42 delegates to offer the winner. Maryland (37 proportional) and DC (19 winner take all) will also hold primaries, but so far, no one seems to have noticed.

Things are looking pretty good for Romney in Wisconsin. He's holding on to a fairly stable lead there. He is also leading in MD and DC. If Romney can walk away with all 42 + 19 on Tuesday, and let's just say half of Maryland, for a grand total of 79 (we'll round up), and we'll be generous and give Santorum 17, that would bring the totals to---

Romney- 645

Santorum - 280

Gingrich - 140

That would put Romney well more than half way to the 1,140 needed to take the nomination. And puts Santorum just shy of half way to the half way point of getting the necessary delegates. 

Santorum still thinks he has enough friends in Pennsylvania to win there. Pennsylvania's primary is in 3 more weeks, and has 72 proportional delegates. If by some miracle he takes a clean sweep of the state, and gets all 72 delegates for himself, for a grand total of 355, he would only be 785 delegates short of the nomination. (Or in other words, he still wouldn't be close to winning.) 

Last week Gingrich laid off his staff and admitted he has no hope. But he also reminded everyone just how "grandiose" he can be by comparing himself to the University of Kansas men's basketball team, which squeaked past Ohio State on Saturday night to set up Monday's NCAA tournament championship showdown with top-seeded Kentucky.

After tomorrow, we the people and the media, get a nice little three week break. April 24 will bring us Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island.

Louisiana Partial Primary Caucus Today

According to the website I found this on, it is a map of Louisiana "counties." Seeing as they don't have counties in LA, I'm pretty sure it is a map of LA parishes.

There are 46 delegates up for grabs in Louisiana today, of which 20 will be awarded proportionally. Party rules require that a candidates get at least 25% the popular vote to qualify for at-large delegates. Some delegates will remain unbound if candidates don’t meet the 25 percent threshold. The remaining delegates will be divvied up through a caucus and state convention next month. (This is a part of what I like to call Santorum Math- the ability to not win in a state, but still say you might win it later.)

Polls close at 9pm. None of the candidates are in Louisiana though.

A Public Policy Polling survey conducted Wednesday and Thursday found-
Santorum 42%
Romney 30%
Gingrich 21%

A Rasmussen poll this week gave Santorum 37%, Romney 24%.  

Santorum Math is a Beautiful Thing (or Romney wins IL)

"My math has to be right! I counted with this many fingers!"

So Romney beat Santorum in Illinois. Now what?
Well, someone has to win in Louisiana Saturday, and it likely won't be Romney. But let's talk about IL before we go south.
In spite of my confusion yesterday about whether or not there are 54 or 69 delegates in IL, the answer is both. There are 54 "direct election proportional" and the remaining 15 are picked in a complicated "don't call them superdelegates" (because Democrats have supers, the GOPdoes not) process. So technically there were 54 delegates up for grabs last night, but Illinois has 69 delegates. Got it?
Really the only questions we all have at this point are -
1. Is Gingrich ready to drop out yet?
2. Does Santorum have a chance of reaching 1,144?
3. Is Romney going to reach the magic number, and if so, when?

To answer the first question, no. Gingrich still continues to make it clear he won't drop out, and that now he is only in the game to keep votes away from Romney. But quite frankly, isn't he also taking votes away from Santorum? Gingrich has been stumping in Louisiana, where he is matching Romney in the polls at about 20% each. Santorum leads there with about 34%.

On to the next two questions.

NBC’s “First Read"  says that even if Romney won every single delegate available after today, he wouldn’t reach the magic 1,144 number until the May 29 primary. If he only wins 60 percent of the delegates in most of the state, he won't reach the threshold number until the Utah primary on June 26. I can't find an article online to back me up, but I heard John King on CNN say pretty much the same thing last night.

Everything you need to know before the Illinois primary tomorrow

The inexplicable Google image results for "official language of Massachusetts." I highly recommend enlarging for full amusement.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) brings the Illinois primary. Here's what you need to know. 
Illinois has 54 delegates according to one article, and 69 according to CNN and Real Clear Politics. I'm pretty sure the answer is actually 69, but you never really know. Sometimes these news outlets make it really hard to know who to trust.*

Source: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/calculator/

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html

The current delegate count is-
Romney 519
Santorum 239
Gingrich 138
Paul 69

Score 1 for Romney (actually that's 33 for Romney)

Santorum sleeps on the job, Romney wins Puerto Rico

As of 6:30 p.m. ET, with about 10% of total ballots accounted for, according to some media outlets, Mitt Romney had 82% of the vote in Puerto Rico (10,000 votes). 

Apparently the Puerto Ricans were not swayed by Senator Shirtless who trailed in a distant second, at 9% with more than 1,000 votes.

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party.
There I've said it. It needed to be said. There is nothing "grand" about the GOP this election season. There have been so many missteps away from the issues that matter, that it is painful to listen.
English for statehood in Puerto Rico?
Moon colonies?
Rush Limbaugh?
Dogs on the roof?
With all of the important issues that need to be addressed in the world today, presidential candidates are talking about requiring English in Puerto Rico? Are you kidding me? Is there anything about that subject that is vital or will make the world a better place tomorrow?
You know what, forget the "world." Let's just focus on making America a better place tomorrow, and ask ourselves which of the following issues discussed by the media and the campaigns this week will actually improve the average American's life tomorrow.

Does Rush Limbaugh speak for Republicans? and Rush Limbaugh joins Twitter.
Mitt Romney calls billionaires friends
English in Puerto Rico

And we're done. That's sad. Really sad. There are no other topics being discussed by the GOP candidates this week, at least not that the media is covering. I blame the candidates. Is this the best they can do? They are in a battle to become one of the most powerful people in the entire known universe, and they can't come up with something more important to say?

How depressing is it that the man who made headlines today for trying to end suffering in the Sudan is an actor? And not a man who is in a race to be the President of the United States?

Sure, human rights and international relationships aren't exactly Republican party favorites. But that doesn't mean they can't start now. There is a major battle going on in Syria- why aren't the candidates talking more about that? We have troops in Afghanistan! Let's talk about the military! Something! Anything but English in Puerto Rico and celebrities on Twitter!

Okay, I admit, it is hard for candidates to talk very much about international relations and military conflicts when they are not privy to intel briefings. And the media likes to ask broad questions but wants narrow answers that can trip up candidates. I get it. Sometimes it is just easier to avoid certain topics like that. So avoid the media and put out a well-written statement explaining how the candidate feels about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc? Voters don't get to hear enough about what candidates think on international relations until after they are elected. And then that becomes one of the key issues an elected official is judged on. Let's judge them now instead.


I blame Rick Santorum for really messing up the campaign trail by bringing in completely unnecessary issues (like English, Internet porn, etc). He has taken us away from the real, immediate, important issues, and spiraled us into Stupidsville, where he doesn't even have a well-crafted agenda waiting. If you are going to bring up and start a new topic, at least be ready for battle on it!

Mitt Romney doesn't get off scot-free here either. The media has well reported time and time again that he has failed to inspire and motivate the base. As a supporter I took offense to that. But now, I have to admit, I agree. He tries to set himself apart as a great leader, but he has yet to set the tone and the agenda. He seems to constantly be reacting to what is thrown at him, trying to remind people that he has a well-thought out platform on his website, and in his book. But he needs to stop reacting, and go out there and start the conversation. He needs to stop talking about how he was a good leader, and instead go out there and be the party's leader.

I'm not even going to dignify Newt Gingrich's antics with a statement, except to say he too has failed.

The candidates need to set the platform, and bring back the real issues of today. Drop the 1996 issues of English, abortion, and homeschooling. Address today and what will make the world, or at least America, better tomorrow.


 

Live Blogging (and Tweeting) the Arizona and Michigan Returns

I am the Swing State Voter

I will be live blogging and tweeting throughout the night during the Arizona and Michigan returns. This will be best read from the bottom up. I will update from the top, pushing older comments down. And I will put timestamps in as often as possible.

10:18- CNN waited until Santorum started getting boring before interrupting. They have now called it for Romney as well! WOOHOO! 
41% Romney
37% Santorum
12% Paul
7% Gingrich
There will still be some questions about delegates later because they follow the congressional districts.

10:14- Looks like NBC is calling it first- for Romney in Michigan! (They interrupted Santorum speech to do it.) I wonder if CNN is just being polite to Santorum and waiting a few minutes to call it themselves? Or are they just not ready yet?

10:05- just to build on my question about how many Democrats voted for Santorum versus Catholics-

Again, basic math of 100
9 Democrats voted total, of which 4.77 voted for Santorum.
22 Republicans voted for Santorum.
And 10 Independents.
That's not a good sign.
It really is looking like it will come down to about 4-5% difference in who wins. That 9% may actually make a difference, but not enough of one!


9:58- Sounds like we may be minutes away from Michigan getting called for Romney!
Meanwhile- the exit polls on religion in Michigan.

Again using very basic math on 100 people.
39 voters were white evangelicals, of which 19.5 voted for Santorum.
61 were not white evangelicals (the question not being answered if this is where Catholics would identify, but we'll assume that they would)- and 26 of them voted with Romney, and 18 for Santorum. Again, it does not look like Santorum attracted the conservative Catholic vote he was angling for.

9:50- Food for thought- something to follow up on later tonight. Rumors are coming in that Santorum lost the Catholic vote in both AZ and MI. If it is true that more Catholics voted for Romney, and Santorum's robocall strategy really has brought out several thousand Democrats, that means Santorum may very well have more Dems voting for him than his own target audience.


9:40- The question has been asked multiple times over the last few days what it means if Romney loses Michigan. I want to address that question right now while we still don't know which way MI will go.
It will mean nothing. It will be a little bee sting to the campaign, and give talking heads something to talk about. Because what would they talk about if he won? The only reason it is an issue at all is because Gingrich is trying to make it one. Gingrich who is so far behind in most states that he's hanging out in Georgia, his home state, speaking at the college he used to teach at. Georgia with its 76 proportional delegates. It's Gingrich's only chance to catch up with Santorum. He is the one making the claims that it is an insult not to win your home state, because it is his home state that is his last chance to win something. And he knows both Santorum and Romney have fierce battles in their home states.
But does it matter? No. No matter who wins- Santorum or Romney- it is going to be very, very close, and it is proportional. There is a good chance that the winner will only walk away with 3 more delegates than the other one. And Romney just won 29 delegates in AZ tonight. Just as a reminder, Gingrich only has 35 delegates total.
So if Romney doesn't win, what happens is that Gingrich has something to harp on for one week. And that is pretty much it.

9:25- For all those people who claim that Romney won Arizona because it is so heavily Mormon, please see the Exit/Entrance polls at CNN.

Let's use basic math and pretend only 100 people voted.
That would mean-
14.8 Protestants voted for Romney, 12.2 voted for Santorum
7.38 Catholics voted for Romney, 6.3 voted for Santorum
12.74 Mormons voted for Romney, 2.8 voted for Santorum
6.12 "other Christians" voted for Romney, 6.66 voted for Santorum

In other words, Romney did not win because of the Mormon vote. 28.3 of the 41 votes (so, more than half) were not Mormon. He would have won without those votes!



9:20- According to The Fix Twitter feed- Santorum is winning self identified Democrats in Michigan by a 3-1 margin over Romney and Paul, according to exits.

9:03- Arizona is a winner-take-all state. That brings Romney up to 135 delegates.

9:02- Michigan update now has Romney at 41% and Santorum at 39%. Still only 19% of the votes in. This is going to be a very long night. (Oh and Ron Paul at 11% and Gingrich with 6%!!!)

9:01- All polls closed in AZ and MI. And as the polls close, CNN calls it for Romney in Arizona with 44%, Santorum 27%, Gingrich 16%, Paul 11%.

9:00- With 14% of the votes in from Michigan: Santorum 40%, Romney 39%, Paul 11%, Gingrich 7%.

8:30-  It is already a nail-biter in Michigan. Romney was leading for the past hour (1% reporting), and now it is Santorum ahead by about 600 votes (6% reporting).


6:30- CNN is already saying that Michigan will be very close, and to expect it to be a very late night. I'm prepared!

In every primary everywhere there are always rumors that the other party has been infiltrating the polls to cast protest votes. When I worked at the South Carolina campaign office we had a lot of very concerned citizens calling in to say they had "seen Democrats" at the polls. Whether or not that sort of thing is ever true or something to be worried about, we'll never really know. But today we have a very different story with the Santorum campaign actually sending out robocalls to Democrats encouraging them to come out and vote for Santorum in protest of Romney. These aren't even PAC robocalls- they are actually from the real campaign. That is just a crazy, gutsy move. CNN is already showing that 10% of voters in Michigan have been Democrats today. (That is not the same as saying 10% of Democrats voted for Santorum, but you know that won't stop the crazies from saying it that way later.)

Romney to face big challenges in Arizona and Michigan

Michigan

Some people feel former Governor Mitt Romney has Michigan and Arizona (the next two primary states) in the bag. Others think he's in for a bigger fight in both states than originally expected.

Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich claim they could beat Romney if the other guy (Santorum or Gingrich) would just drop out. Well, the other guy may not drop out, but they may get close to their wishes in AZ and MI. Arizona has 29 delegates while Michigan has 30, and both states are in play on February 29.
Because Romney is "the son of Detroit," and Arizona is heavily Mormon, he is expected to do very well in both states. But all signs indicate that Santorum is focusing his energy on Michigan, while Gingrich has his sights set on Arizona. Since neither campaign has the resources (manpower or money) to go full force in both states, it makes sense that they would divide and conquer, leaving Romney with essentially a one on one battle in both states. (Ron Paul is not a factor in either state.) 
According to the Washington Examiner this division of forces is not intentional or the result of any sort of deal between Santorum and Gingrich. "I can assure you no such agreement exists," says a Gingrich source. It's just turning out that way- probably because it is so logical a high school government student could have predicted it.
Santorum has the "momentum" of his hat trick last week in his pocket. While Gingrich hasn't had any success since his win in South Carolina. The polls in Arizona (the state he will be focusing on) show him lagging behind Romney. That being said, he's not actually in Arizona right now, but in California trying to raise money. (Which makes sense really, after all a lot of Arizonans are actually wealthy Californians with vacation homes in Scottsdale.) By the end of the week Gingrich will be in Georgia which is both his home state and a Super Tuesday state. In theory he is strong in Georgia, and rumors of Gingrich going for a "Southern States" campaign strategy are strong since his only win is in the South and makes sense. (in the "if you think he has any place still in the primaries" sense of the word.)

So what is there in Michigan for Santorum, besides a lack of Gingrich?
Well, it turns out Romney may not be as popular in Michigan as once expected. For starters, the bailouts that saved Detroit were opposed by Romney. His biggest problem is that thus far he has campaigned solely on his business and economic strengths. But now suddenly the auto industry (that he wanted to let go bankrupt- a Bain Capital move if there ever was one) has rebounded on Obama policies, and the economy is making a comeback. Romney's "I can save us now" rhetoric is going to fall on deaf ears that are turning back to Obama. Meanwhile, Santorum appeals to the middle class, and Michigan really takes pride in their blue collar roots. Santorum may not have Romney's war chest, but he does have enough money to spend to really bring a fight in Michigan, so he will. And let's not forget there is another CNN debate on February 22. The difference between this debate and the others? There's enough time between the debate and voters going to the polls that the candidates may get to recover or return fire for anything that goes down there. And you better believe that Gingrich (who again, isn't even in Arizona) is banking on "winning" the next debate as his strategy.

In the 2008 Arizona primary, more than 500,000 Republicans voted. In Michigan, it was nearly 900,000.
A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win the nomination. Currently Romney has 105, Santorum 71, Gingrich 29, and Ron Paul 20. Unless you get into the whole pledged/unpledged/super delegates/charade state thing. In which case the numbers change to-
CNN: Romney 127, Gingrich 38, Santorum 37, Paul 27.
Or you can ask Real Clear Politics and get-
Romney 98, Santorum 44, Gingrich 32, Paul 20. 
Either way, really Romney is leading, Santorum is in second, and Gingrich and Paul are not.

Newt Gingrich Needs to Shut Up and Sit Down

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

The last week has been extremely volatile for the GOP candidates. Dick Armey may have said it best on CNN over the weekend regarding Newt Gingrich, "I think he's digressed into a state of taking a second rate campaign and turning it into a first rate vendetta."

If the GOP nomination race were a 'Girls Gone Wild' movie, Gingrich would be the angry, drunk chick knocking over the happy, dancing girls, just to give the camera the bird.

Gingrich brought same party politics to a new low in his post-Nevada speech Saturday night. After multiple meetings with advisers, donors and supporters, (and pleas from the general public at large) to stop attacking on Mitt Romney's character with a chain saw, Gingrich held an unprecedented press conference (in lieu of the much more traditional "election night party" with supporters) where he pummeled Romney.

Gingrich is a very talented historian (and paid handsomely to be one as well). He has shown multiple times that he has an ability to recall facts, figures, and obscure references from ancient writers. And yet, he expects us to believe his version of events and that he cannot recall certain quotes of his own, when the proof is right in front of him. (Including going so far as to have edits made to the Wikipedia page about him!)

His inability to control his anger when he cannot control a situation is frightening. The accusations he will make that other people are dishonest when he, Gingrich, doesn't get his way is worse than a 4 yr old's temper tantrum to Mommy. He cannot just walk away with his head held high from any situation. He instead chooses to insult and discredit the event, in one case calling Romney's Florida win a "fundamentally dishonest campaign."

It is frightening and foretelling to revisit his candidacy announcement from August-

"No one person in the Oval Office can get this done. We Americans are going to have to talk together, work together, find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those forces that don't want to change. There are some people who don't mind if America becomes a wreck as long as they dominate the wreckage... Let's get together, look reality in the face, tell the truth, make the tough choices, and get the job done."
(Need proof he said that? Visit Newt's official YouTube page and watch "Newt Gingrich is Running for President."

Former Speaker Gingrich, it is time for you to shut up and sit down. You, and you alone, are going to divide and ruin the Republican party if you continue with the inability to be honest with yourself and others, and face defeat like a man.

It's Not a Party Without Donald Trump. It's Not the Media Without a Circus.

The Donald at a GOP/Tea Party Event in June 2011, Photo Credit: E. McBride

Yesterday, without question, Mitt Romney made a mistake.

It was a stupid mistake, a simple case of a misplaced pause as he was speaking, and a poorly phrased sentence in a live interview.

By now we all know what he said (but I'll repeat it here for future reference when in a few weeks we can't remember what the hullabaloo was all about today)-

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich; they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

Unfortunately he made an unfortunate pause after he said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." It instantly skyrocketed into the headlines- but not really.