Sunday, January 20, 2008

Meanwhile, back in Florida…………….

…………… things have the potential to get only murkier.

Florida has only 57 delegates, not 114. Each of the 25 congressional districts generates one delegate that is pledged to the winner of that district (not the three delegates of the pre-sanction delegation). A relatively equal split of the district delegates among Mac, Rudy and Huck is probable. The conventional wisdom in Florida describes Mac and Rudy fighting for first in most large urban areas. Mac seems to have an advantage in Hispanic and military suburbs. Huck and Mitt run far ahead in rural Florida, the Panhandle and exurbia north of the Miami SMA. In short, as of Friday, the Florida race was seen as close and volatile by the Gator natives.

The Florida state chair and its national committeeman and committee woman are unpledged.

Florida also allocates 29 at large delegates to the state winner. Here the statistics get trickier. Mitt runs equally well across Florida, whereas the other “Big Three” experience significant geographic disparities in support. The upshot of being second or third everywhere is the possibility of a state wide first place finish. Although not entirely likely such a scenario is not entirely unlikely, either.

In short, it is possible that Mac, Rudy or Huck could all win Florida, pick up 35-40 delegates and yet remain anywhere from a few to a few dozen delegates behind in the delegate count going into February 5. The result, no real Republican front runner is likely to emerge from any one person getting a close Florida win. A Mitt state wide Florida win dramatically widens his delegate lead but may not dramatically affect the February 5 dynamic because it would represent nothing more than the latest weekly win.Since the Florida polls are pretty close a close statewide finish is likely on Election Day.

A close Florida result makes a fractured February 5 “Super Tuesday” result far more likely, and, in fact, the likeliest of results after Florida.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Romney is the only candidate who can stop McCain and Huckabee.

There is a significant chunk of the electorate who WILL NOT vote for McCain under any circumstances. Same for Huckabee.

McCain and the Huckster are every bit as dangerous as Hitlery.

Jack in WDM said...

...more dangerous than Hillary? I don't know if we actually have anyone that fits that description unless Kucinich has changed parties since last night. I'll take any of our guys over Bill's wife.

I heard that goofy Andrew Young saying yesterday that Dems need to back Hillary because she has Bill standing right behind her. How's that again? Jimmy Carter's man-servant's arguement for Hillary is that even if she's incompetent, Bill's always right there. Wow. Sadly, everyone burst into applause when he said it.

No, I'll hold my nose and vote for the Republican establishment candidate before I'll vote for the Democrat establishment candidate.
Both are the "new boss same as the old boss," but I can't take another 8 years of Bill and his sexcapades...I'll just end up feeling sorry for Hillary again...only this time she'd be our President. Total humiliation.

Cedar Waxwing said...

Anon 1:03..

Its that kind of talk that causes our party to fracture apart..and unable to effectively elect our candidates from the top down..

We are here to elect our candidates, no matter who the nominee is...

If you want to sit on the sidelines..fine... There are more of us than you that will be happy to pick up the ball and run with it.

Anonymous said...

Cedar:

Your post is based on the idea that someone's vote "belongs" to one party or the other. If I don't want to vote for Hitlery or McCain, I don't have to. I can vote for the libertarian, Constitution Party candidate, Green Party candidate, socialist, etc. A person's vote belongs to that person, not to one party.

Stop looking at everything through the "Party" lens. Look at which candidates are going to actually advance things like limited government, killing terrorists in a brutal and efficient manner and preserving freedom and American sovereignty. Those issues transcend the Party and you cannot convince me that, with the possible exception of the war on terror, the two parties care about any of those things.

Ask yourself this...

Were we MORE free or LESS free when the Republicans were thrown out off office than we were when they took power?

Was the size of government bigger or smaller when the Republicans were thrown out of office than we were when they took power?

Was the government more or less powerful when the Republicans were thrown out of office than we were when they took power?

Anonymous said...

Cedar, you made me dig out my C.S. Lewis.

"A Reply to Professor Haldane" (Lewis, C.S. "A Reply to Professor Haldane." On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.):

If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.

In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication (75-76).

Jack in WDM said...

Nice post. CS Lewis...one of my favorites. One of my many issues with the Darwinists within the Democratic party is akin to what Lewis describes above. When your theocracy is the government itself; then the government can never be doubted, let alone, wrong. Bill's wife and Edwards are practitioners of this theocracy in my view...Obama not so much.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, Jack, I posted it as a warning against Huckabee.

Jack in WDM said...

yeah, I can see that, too. My point is that there's "theocracies" of many kinds. There's the obvious Taliban/religious type of configuration, but also the secular religion of many of our establishment Democrats. Just because a theocracy doesn't have some goof walking around in a robe in a tax exempt building doesn't make it less ominous. Still, good post. I wasn't familiar with that one. ...Imagine, learning something worthwhile on Sporer's blog...bet that doesn't happen too much!

Cedar Waxwing said...

Anon,

As I said..if you want to go and sit on the sidelines and not vote..or go vote for a 3rd Party candidate..fine.

There are more of us that will be more than willing to pick up the ball for our nominee whomever it is, and run with it.

We all have our candidate we like..only one of them is going to get the nomination...

In the meantime, we've got candidates all the way from Congress to the courthouse that are going to need our help to get elected.

That's what Republican activists do..we help get OUR people elected..

It's quite frankly absurd that if lets say you disagree with whomever our Presidential nominee is..that you'd simply run away from all of our other candidates because of that.

Anonymous said...

Cedar,

Thanks for talking some sense into our radical friends. Let us not forget that someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy. John McCain is a friend, even if you don't agree with him on all of the issues all of the time. If you actually take the time to really look at his positions on the issues, you'll see that he's more conservative than most McHaters would want you to believe.

Of course, most of you will probably just start shouting things like "McCain against Bush taxcuts!" and "McCain-Kennedy!" without actually ever investigating what he was really trying to accomplish.

Anonymous said...

Cedar:

Again, you look at everything through the "Party" lens, and therein lies the problem.

I only said that I would not vote for McCain or Huckabee under any circumstances. Thompson is ok, I have warmed up considerably to Romney and I think Rudy is a mean, vicious, nasty son of a bitch-exactly what we need.


9:17
Of course, most of you will probably just start shouting things like "McCain against Bush taxcuts!" and "McCain-Kennedy!" without actually ever investigating what he was really trying to accomplish.

Which was what? The sellout of America? McCain would rather tens of thousands of Americans die than to have some terrorist get water up his nose for ten seconds. He was pro-amnesty, was in the Gang of Fourteen and has bought into the global warming hoax. He was for LOST before he was against it.

If I want someone who is going to sponsor legislation with DemocRATs, I will vote for a DemocRAT.

Anonymous said...

9:17 again:

I would rather have someone with the wrong principles in office (Hitlery) than someone devoid of any (McCain).

What Now Rush... What Now? said...

For those of you who continue to question McCain and/or Huckabee...

Rep. Duncan Hunter did his first TV interview today since he withdrew from the race on Fox's Cavuto on Business today..

Hunter stated that Romney was a "no-go" for him, since his company, Bain Capital, had partnered with a Chinese defense contractor that helped Saddam Hussein with setting air defenses against US pilots..

Bain Capital is partnering with this contractor to buy a US defense contractor..Hunter thinks its a major security problem..

Hunter states that he likes Huckabee's integrity..and McCain's commitment to national security..

So..what's people like Rush Limbaugh..Hannity, Levin, etc going to do..when a solid conservative leader like Duncan Hunter endorses someone like Huckabee or McCain?

Limbaugh has spent the majority of the past 3 weeks ripping some of our own candidates up and down the street..claiming that they're not "conservative"..they're really liberals..etc etc..

Yet..you've got respected, noted conservatives like Jack Kemp, who's endorsed McCain..and lets just say that Hunter endorses Huckabee...

What then? Is Rush and the other talking heads going to "excommunicate" people like Kemp and Hunter from the conservative movement?

Granted..Rush's words have started to ring somewhat hollow.. He claimed before the SC primary that Thompson was "surging" there..and then Thompson finshed a distant 3rd..

Anonymous said...

What now:

If you want a Christian socialist in office, just go all out and nominate Je$$e Jack$on.

What Now.... said...

"Christian socialist"

**shakes head** to compare Huckabee to a known shakedown artist like Jesse Jackson is disingenous at best and just plain stupid.

Look at the exit polls in SC, anon..Most of the electorate this year described themselves as "conservative" and they split their votes evenly between Huckabee and McCain..

Iowa GOPer's aren't exactly a bunch of knock kneed moderates either..and Huckabee easily won here..

Anon..if you want to have people like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, et al define what "conservatism"..my suggestion would be that you need to quit letting others think for yourself.

Anon..answer the question.. Lets say that McCain and/or Huckabee continue to do well..Is Rush and other conservative talking heads going to "excommunicate" people like Jack Kemp and Duncan Hunter if they back people like McCain or Huckabee?

My arguement is this..if that IF Rush and others continue this tactic of ripping some of our candidates..its going to cause MORE damage to our party than anything the candidate could do to each other in debates and on the trail..

This whole thing smacks of ideological purity tests.. Something Democrats have been doing for years...something that GOPers have always claimed we dont have...yet..here we are...

Anonymous said...

I can't wait till Sporer is State Chair! 5 more days till the Sporer Administration!

Torial said...

Sorry for the off-topic, but who is running for the GOP for Congressional District 3?

If anyone knows, please email me directly, thanks

Sean

Anonymous said...

Right now..there is no candidate for IA CD-3 on the GOP side.

Anonymous said...

now what:

You have not been reading my previous posts. If you had, you would see that I criticized Cedar for looking at everything through the lens of the "Party." For the record, I am not a Republican. I am registered No Party and will keep it that way. I was a Republican for two hours on caucus night. I went home, got deloused, took three showers, and registered No Party again. Frankly, I don't give a shit about the Republican Party.

**shakes head** to compare Huckabee to a known shakedown artist like Jesse Jackson is disingenous at best and just plain stupid.

No. It is honest. If you are as clueless as the Huckatards at my caucus site, then please stay the hell away from a voting booth.

Anon..if you want to have people like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, et al define what "conservatism"..my suggestion would be that you need to quit letting others think for yourself.

So your definition of "conservatism" includes raising taxes, out of control spending, bigger, more intrusive government, amnesty for illegals and expanding the federal role in education?

I would hate to see what you consider liberal! I do find it amusing that the Huckabots and McCainuses LOVED Limbaugh till he started ripping on "their" guy. Hannity is a shill for Rudy.

Anon..answer the question.. Lets say that McCain and/or Huckabee continue to do well..Is Rush and other conservative talking heads going to "excommunicate" people like Jack Kemp and Duncan Hunter if they back people like McCain or Huckabee?

Beats the hell out of me. Call Rush and ask him. I am not his spokesman.

My arguement is this..if that IF Rush and others continue this tactic of ripping some of our candidates..its going to cause MORE damage to our party than anything the candidate could do to each other in debates and on the trail..

Again, not a Republican. Therefore, I don't give a shit about the Party. Perhaps YOU are the one that needs to think for themselves.

This whole thing smacks of ideological purity tests.. Something Democrats have been doing for years...something that GOPers have always claimed we dont have...yet..here we are...

Third time...Not a Republican, don't give a shit.

Look at which candidate is best for America, not the Party.

The Real Sporer said...

So, 6:43, your preference is for the even higher taxes the Dems advocate, the outright socialism of their economic agenda; the social welfare state that Hillary or Barack would impose, the surrender in Iraq, retreat in the WoT and appeasement of Islamofacsists as the cornerstone of American diplomacy?

Those are the real world choices. A vote is not a metaphysical construct, it is a political act in the most tangible of worlds. So you would intensify every harm you see in the world to secure ideological purity or identity between yourself and somebody who must win around sixty million votes next November?

If everyone applied your demand for identity of ideology then we would have the stability of Somalia.

So, while you might not give a shit about the Republican Party, we value you most preciously, that is far more than that for you, that is why we remain in the real, albeit imperfect, world, actually fighting the culture war.

Anonymous said...

Ted:

As I articulated in my 9:02 post above:

Stop looking at everything through the "Party" lens. Look at which candidates are going to actually advance things like limited government, killing terrorists in a brutal and efficient manner and preserving freedom and American sovereignty. Those issues transcend the Party and you cannot convince me that, with the possible exception of the war on terror, the two parties care about any of those things.

As you can see, I am probably the biggest cultural warrior here. I have been on the front lines shouting down the liberals for going on eighteen years. I still do, and will continue to do so.

You are forgetting the agenda that Bush and the Republicrats imposed. Expansion of the size of government, horribly botching a war (before the idiot Rumsfeld, the worst SecDef ever, finally stepped down), proposing amnesty for illegals, massive expansion of the welfare state, more government involvement in our everyday lives, the value of the dollar in the tank and massive non WOT domestic discretionary spending increases.

Guys like McCain would rather tens of thousands of Americans die than have a terrorist get some water up his nose or have panties put on his head. How the hell is this guy going to win the war? I won't even get into his other flaws. Suffice it to say, I think the guy is an asshat.

Huckabee favors a nationwide smoking ban, has demonstrated no knowledge whatsoever of the proper role of government or understanding of the Constitution, raised taxes in Arkansas, was named one of the most corrupt governors by Judicial Watch and has bought into the global warming hoax.

If the RATS did the stuff McCain and Tax Hike Mike did, the Republicans (I think) would be screaming bloody murder.

Reagan is turning over in his grave.

Anonymous said...

Well said 8:54. I refuse to back a party that forgot where it came from. Third party for me this time around.

Jack in WDM said...

Actually, boys, I think your candidate ate a gun in Berlin in 1945...maybe he's got a wife or something...

Cedar Waxwing said...

So anon..

Why DID you come to the GOP caucuses?... You said the following...

"I was a Republican for two hours on caucus night. I went home, got deloused, took three showers, and registered No Party again."

You do realize that the caucuses are a PARTY meeting...and the point of the Republican Party..is to elect REPUBLICANS to office..

So yes..I'm going to look at things through the "party lens" as you put it... My job as an activist is to help elect Republicans from the White House to the courthouse....

You see Anon..we dont have "purity" tests here...We're not like the Democrats who throw you out of the party if you don't toe the party line 100% of the time all of the time...

You know anon.. Ronald Reagan during his time as President..gave amnesty to illegals in 1986...he also raised taxes in 1982 and raised Social Security taxes..federal spending skyrocketed..and US Dept of Education grew bigger..

Yet..I think we all can agree that Reagan was the greatest conservative of modern times..

Now Anon..I don't know what your credentials as a "culture warrior" are or are not..

However, I would think you of all people would understand..that a Hillary or Obama presidency..would be far more damaging than what any Presidency of a McCain or a Huckabee could ever be...

Someone who is a "culture warrior" would understand that..

McCain and Huckabee are the furthest thing from Hillary/Obama as you can get..

They're Republicans....you may not like their stand on certain issues, etc....However, if either one of them is our nominee..you bet your ass I'm going to go out there and work to get them elected.

I KNOW what the alternative is...and trust me..I sure as hell don't want of 4 years of living under a Hillary or Obama presidency..

Anonymous said...

Cedar:

I went to help stop McCain and Huckabee. I saw Romney as the only candidate who could do that.

However, I would think you of all people would understand..that a Hillary or Obama presidency..would be far more damaging than what any Presidency of a McCain or a Huckabee could ever be...

I disagree. Huckabee would be like Bush 2.0 and deliver what DemocRATS promise. McCain would be even worse. He would roll over for the RATS every chance he got. You would essentially get the same agenda.

Do you want to go down the road to socialism at 45 mph or at 60 mph. With either party, you will get there, it is just a matter of how soon.

McCain and Huckabee are the furthest thing from Hillary/Obama as you can get..

See above.

The reason I liked Reagan was that Reagan believed in the superiority of America and Americans. He believed in the superiority of his ideas. He also believed in the superiority of conservatism and that freedom would ultimately triumph over tyranny. He believed (unlike modern Republicans) that government was the problem and that the proper function of government was to step aside and allow "ordinary people to do extraordinary things."

Republicans do not believe in the superiority of their ideas.

They're Republicans....you may not like their stand on certain issues, etc....However, if either one of them is our nominee..you bet your ass I'm going to go out there and work to get them elected.

That's your prerogative. I could vote for Romney. Say what you will about Ron Paul and the Paulestinians, he is the only one who has consistently promoted limited government. Rudy is a mean, nasty SOB, so I could be persuaded to vote for him as well. If the nominee is McCain or Huckabee, I'll probably go with whoever the Constitution or Libertarian parties chuck up there.

One more thing, Cedar. We had a murdering, raping sociopath in the White House for eight years. The House rightly impeached him. When it got to the Senate, Juan McKennedy voted AGAINST articles of impeachment and voted against removing this sociopath from the White House.

The presidency is about crisis leadership. When we had a crisis in this country, McCain blew it.

Anonymous said...

Anon..

Quite frankly..I dont think you have a clue of how damaging an Obama or Hillary presidency would be for this country...

You talk about being a "culture warrior"..then say you thought Mitt Romney was "the best" one to stop McCain and/or Huckabee..

So..I guess it didnt bother you that Romney supported and defended a woman's "right to choose"..

I guess it didn't bother you that Romney allowed sanctuary cities to be established in Massachusetts..

Here's where I think you're really stepping in it if you're worried about going "down the path to socialism"..Romney approved and advocated a publically-financed state health insurance plan that REQUIRED everyone in Massachusetts to have health insurance...where's the ideals of conservatism in that?

If you're so worried about socialism....quite frankly, Romney doesn't measure up to the standards you're so concerned about..

You had no response for Cedar's correct listing of what Reagan did in office...He did raise taxes..spending did skyrocket during his terms..and give amnesty to illegals..

Does that make Reagan that much less of an icon for the conservative movement..absolutely not..

So..Anon..quite frankly..you're not making a hellva lot of sense with your ramblings..

Anonymous said...

Here's where I think you're really stepping in it if you're worried about going "down the path to socialism"..Romney approved and advocated a publically-financed state health insurance plan that REQUIRED everyone in Massachusetts to have health insurance...where's the ideals of conservatism in that?

Got me there. I forgot about that one.

As far as the abortion thing goes, I'm pro life but I also recognize that, aside from appointing the occasional Justice, there is really nothing a President can do about it. The President cannot amend the constitution or pass legislation. That has to come from Congress.

You had no response for Cedar's correct listing of what Reagan did in office...He did raise taxes..spending did skyrocket during his terms..and give amnesty to illegals..

And if you read his diaries, he agonized over those. Most of that he had to sign in order to get his military buildup and his tax cuts. I didn't say Reagan did not have faults. He did. What I said was that Reagan believed in the superiority of his ideas. That is what made him great.

Anonymous said...

Here's where I think you're really stepping in it if you're worried about going "down the path to socialism"..Romney approved and advocated a publically-financed state health insurance plan that REQUIRED everyone in Massachusetts to have health insurance...where's the ideals of conservatism in that?

Got me there. I forgot about that one.

As far as the abortion thing goes, I'm pro life but I also recognize that, aside from appointing the occasional Justice, there is really nothing a President can do about it. The President cannot amend the constitution or pass legislation. That has to come from Congress.

You had no response for Cedar's correct listing of what Reagan did in office...He did raise taxes..spending did skyrocket during his terms..and give amnesty to illegals..

And if you read his diaries, he agonized over those. Most of that he had to sign in order to get his military buildup and his tax cuts. I didn't say Reagan did not have faults. He did. What I said was that Reagan believed in the superiority of his ideas. That is what made him great.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore