Here's a question for you, imbalanced: do you honestly think Huckabee has even the most remote chance at the nomination at this point? The only state he's won so far wasn't contested by McCain. If he couldn't win South freaking Carolina, where can he win?
If you accept that he can't win, is it necessary to accord him equal time with the candidates who might?
Actually right now I see Huckabee winning more states than Mitt Romney does. Most of the big states are going to McCain and all the southern/middle American states are going to Huckabee. That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that a debate is a platform for all running candidates. They work their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, the least they could be given is some respect and as close to equal time as possible in the debates.
Debates aren't there for the front runners, they are there to help undecided voters pick a candidate, or maybe make decided voters rethink their positions. If you're only letting two people speak, then voters are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves. I would think that's obvious.
This isn't a Mike Huckabee thing. It's a media problem that should not happen, and if we let it slide now then it will become a common stay in elections to come. If candidates are in the race and meet the requirements of the debate, then they should be given the same amount of respect. End of story.
EDIT: I have no problem with Alan Keyes being at the debates, as long as he meets their minimum requirements.
I like Ron Paul, that is already known. Ron Paul, unless a meteorite hits earth and is full of the element Crazium, and is enriched, and totally affects everyone, will not win. And that makes me cry, but I don't want an arguement, so I'll leave it right there since everyone here is set in stone on who they like. I just hate having to explain to people who Ron Paul is due to the news channels not metioning him, ever.
The worst is watching Ron Paul people try and explain it to themselves.... that will make you weep inside.
I really hope he runs as an independant.... SNL got hours of awesome material out of Ross Perot... I imagine Ron Paul could single handedly end the writers strike.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Here's a question for you, imbalanced: do you honestly think Huckabee has even the most remote chance at the nomination at this point? The only state he's won so far wasn't contested by McCain. If he couldn't win South freaking Carolina, where can he win?
If you accept that he can't win, is it necessary to accord him equal time with the candidates who might?
Actually right now I see Huckabee winning more states than Mitt Romney does. Most of the big states are going to McCain and all the southern/middle American states are going to Huckabee. That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that a debate is a platform for all running candidates. They work their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, the least they could be given is some respect and as close to equal time as possible in the debates.
Debates aren't there for the front runners, they are there to help undecided voters pick a candidate, or maybe make decided voters rethink their positions. If you're only letting two people speak, then voters are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves. I would think that's obvious.
This isn't a Mike Huckabee thing. It's a media problem that should not happen, and if we let it slide now then it will become a common stay in elections to come. If candidates are in the race and meet the requirements of the debate, then they should be given the same amount of respect. End of story.
EDIT: I have no problem with Alan Keyes being at the debates, as long as he meets their minimum requirements.
How can you hold such arbitrary minimum requirements against a candidate's ability to participate in media debates? They're working their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, afterall.
How can you hold such arbitrary minimum requirements against a candidate's ability to participate in media debates? They're working their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, afterall.
I don't make the arbitrary minimum requirements, so I'm not really to blame on that one. But all candidates at any given debate are supposed to be treated as equals, and the candidates determine their level of importance following the debate based on their own performance and what voters decide.
To grossly manipulate that system to benefit specific candidates is unethical, and more importantly, not the role of journalism.
Yeah, cry about it in your coffee with everyone else who loses.
Huckabee hasn't failed because the media has marginalized him. He has failed because he only strongly appeals to 30% of Republicans - and apparently they don't even care enough to donate money to him. Usually when insurgent candidates like Huckabee come out of nowhere with a win like Iowa the money floods in to sustain them. Also, he has totally failed to entice defense, small government and business Republicans in any appreciable numbers. He hasn't even succeeded in really locking up the evangelical vote, to whom he has dedicated his candidacy over the last two months in a very narrow appeal.
How can you hold such arbitrary minimum requirements against a candidate's ability to participate in media debates? They're working their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, afterall.
I don't make the arbitrary minimum requirements, so I'm not really to blame on that one. But all candidates at any given debate are supposed to be treated as equals, and the candidates determine their level of importance following the debate based on their own performance and what voters decide.
To grossly manipulate that system to benefit specific candidates is unethical, and more importantly, not the role of journalism.
You may not make them, but you professed to support them. Even if only tacitly. Do you want equal time and access to all politicians campaigning for a position, or should it be restricted so that viable candidates are given more time to expound upon their justifications for your vote at the expense of candidates who have proved themselves incapable of getting much a groundswell of support?
You know if this was the Democratic debates and John Edwards was getting ignored in his three person debate, everyone would be up in arms. I said it before and I'll say it again, this manipulation of a debate made me feel sorry for Ron Paul, someone who I strongly oppose.
It doesn't matter what your opinions on Mike Huckabee's success or failure, the fact of the matter is that he and Paul made the basic requirements needed to be included in the debate. Why are you guys being so dense on this?
You know if this was the Democratic debates and Jon Edwards was getting ignored in his three person debate, everyone would be up in arms.
No I wouldn't. He hasn't won a single state and represents half the voting presence of either candidate at best. He isn't going to win the primary and shouldn't be expected to get as much time to speak as those who will. Now, if he was ignored in favour of giving more air time to Dennis Kucinich I'd be a bit pissed...
It doesn't matter what your opinions on Mike Huckabee's success or failure, the fact of the matter is that he and Paul made the basic requirements needed to be included in the debate. Why are you guys being so dense on this?
Meeting the minimum requirements does not denote a garuntee of parity of time with the actually successful candidates up on the stage. And how can you support having minimum requirements for access to a debate, outside of 'is running for president in the Republican or Democratic party,' if you believe that all candidates should be given equal time at debates?
And how can you support having minimum requirements for access to a debate, outside of 'is running for president in the Republican or Democratic party,' if you believe that all candidates should be given equal time at debates?
Well that's a stupid question. Access to a debate, and then ethical guidelines of a debate are wholly different things. If you don't have minimum requirements, I could do a Stephen Colbert and register in one state and then demand entry into the debates. Without requirements you'd have thousands of candidates on stage.
There has to be SOME sort of guidelines as to who can participate or the value of a debate becomes null. However, for there truly to be a "debate" then you must allow all participants time to speak. If you have people not speaking at a debate, then you should not invite them. If you cannot create fair requirements that would exclude those candidates from participating, then you shouldn't be deciding who gets to speak in the first place.
Fine. You wanna talk statistics? Let's go. Here are all the February 5th states up for grabs, as well as who is likely to win them and how much those states are worth.
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited February 2008
Huck is falling apart. I doubt he'll take as much of the South as you're projecting.
I don't see Evangelicals as a particularly motivated voting bloc at the moment. They didn't even show up in Florida or South Carolina.
Fine. You wanna talk statistics? Let's go. Here are all the February 5th states up for grabs, as well as who is likely to win them and how much those states are worth.
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //PAUL//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
I didn't project anything for Huckabee, these results were taken by Rassmussen/Real Clear Politics polls. In the cases where Huckabee was a close leader, his second place was always McCain, not Romney.
Also you'll note that "evangelicals," as they like to call Christians that aren't Catholic, did show up in both Florida and South Carolina as expected. In South Carolina their vote was split between Huckabee and Thompson. Florida isn't a social republican hotbed, the counties that do represent those values are in the panhandle area, and you can see from CNN Politics that some went for Romney and some went to Huckabee depending on the county.
So I hate to say it, but not really: You're wrong.
Fine. You wanna talk statistics? Let's go. Here are all the February 5th states up for grabs, as well as who is likely to win them and how much those states are worth.
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
Apparently he also might win Maine. If he wins more than two states, I'd say his campaign was a success considering his positions in a Republican nomination process. I went ahead and put Paul up for Alaska on this page's quote of the breakdown.
As for how they choose delegates per state, you'd have to read the official Republican National Convention documentation as to how they choose because it's hard for me to put it into words easily. Basically everybody gets a base amount + Republican officials + Amount of population that is registered/voted Republican in previous elections. Here's a PDF of the rules. http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf
Fine. You wanna talk statistics? Let's go. Here are all the February 5th states up for grabs, as well as who is likely to win them and how much those states are worth.
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
Ron Paul is projected to win Alaska.
The state that elects Ted Stevens every 6 years? The one with a separatist party?
Apparently he also might win Maine. If he wins more than two states, I'd say his campaign was a success considering his positions in a Republican nomination process. I went ahead and put Paul up for Alaska on this page's quote of the breakdown.
He has a chance but I have a feeling it will go to Romney. He's also campaigning there. Second place is very possible though.
My hope is that he'll get enough decent finishes in some states ahead of any one of the three so he justifies continued debate inclusion and the media doesn't completely write him out of the narrative
Fine. You wanna talk statistics? Let's go. Here are all the February 5th states up for grabs, as well as who is likely to win them and how much those states are worth.
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
Ron Paul is projected to win Alaska.
The state that elects Ted Stevens every 6 years? The one with a separatist party?
Yeah, they're certainly batting a thousand.
So much hate. Do you fear Ron Paul because he's gonna siphon anti-war, pro civil liberties votes away from Obama in the general when he runs third party?
I wouldn't worry too much. If he runs 3rd party despite the lefties he'll pull, he still takes more away from the conservatives. He'll hand Obama the election and tank the GOP candidate.
So much hate. Do you fear Ron Paul because he's gonna siphon anti-war, pro civil liberties votes away from Obama in the general when he runs third party?
I wouldn't worry too much. If he runs 3rd party despite the lefties he'll pull, he still takes more away from the conservatives. He'll hand Obama the election and tank the GOP candidate.
First of all, I don't fear Ron Paul at all. Secondly, Ron Paul isn't pro-civil liberties. Thirdly, Obama isn't going to win the Dem primary. Fourthly, even if he were to run, and siphon votes off either McCain or Hillary, I wouldn't give a shit, because I don't particularly like either of them, and it's not like he's going to win. Hopefully, he would end up being every bit the respected persona that Ross Perot is now.
So much hate. Do you fear Ron Paul because he's gonna siphon anti-war, pro civil liberties votes away from Obama in the general when he runs third party?
I wouldn't worry too much. If he runs 3rd party despite the lefties he'll pull, he still takes more away from the conservatives. He'll hand Obama the election and tank the GOP candidate.
..Thirdly, Obama isn't going to win the Dem primary. ...
Have some faith man. It's not all piss and vinegar. At least your candidate gets speaking time at the debates. I think America can elect a progressive. If they don't this year they never will. Don't be so fatalistic. I'm pulling for the guy too.
Posts
Actually right now I see Huckabee winning more states than Mitt Romney does. Most of the big states are going to McCain and all the southern/middle American states are going to Huckabee. That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that a debate is a platform for all running candidates. They work their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, the least they could be given is some respect and as close to equal time as possible in the debates.
Debates aren't there for the front runners, they are there to help undecided voters pick a candidate, or maybe make decided voters rethink their positions. If you're only letting two people speak, then voters are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves. I would think that's obvious.
This isn't a Mike Huckabee thing. It's a media problem that should not happen, and if we let it slide now then it will become a common stay in elections to come. If candidates are in the race and meet the requirements of the debate, then they should be given the same amount of respect. End of story.
EDIT: I have no problem with Alan Keyes being at the debates, as long as he meets their minimum requirements.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
The worst is watching Ron Paul people try and explain it to themselves.... that will make you weep inside.
I really hope he runs as an independant.... SNL got hours of awesome material out of Ross Perot... I imagine Ron Paul could single handedly end the writers strike.
The media is just afraid of a black man who knows a thing or two about Jesus.
How can you hold such arbitrary minimum requirements against a candidate's ability to participate in media debates? They're working their asses off on the campaign trail day-in and day-out, afterall.
I don't make the arbitrary minimum requirements, so I'm not really to blame on that one. But all candidates at any given debate are supposed to be treated as equals, and the candidates determine their level of importance following the debate based on their own performance and what voters decide.
To grossly manipulate that system to benefit specific candidates is unethical, and more importantly, not the role of journalism.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Huckabee hasn't failed because the media has marginalized him. He has failed because he only strongly appeals to 30% of Republicans - and apparently they don't even care enough to donate money to him. Usually when insurgent candidates like Huckabee come out of nowhere with a win like Iowa the money floods in to sustain them. Also, he has totally failed to entice defense, small government and business Republicans in any appreciable numbers. He hasn't even succeeded in really locking up the evangelical vote, to whom he has dedicated his candidacy over the last two months in a very narrow appeal.
You may not make them, but you professed to support them. Even if only tacitly. Do you want equal time and access to all politicians campaigning for a position, or should it be restricted so that viable candidates are given more time to expound upon their justifications for your vote at the expense of candidates who have proved themselves incapable of getting much a groundswell of support?
It doesn't matter what your opinions on Mike Huckabee's success or failure, the fact of the matter is that he and Paul made the basic requirements needed to be included in the debate. Why are you guys being so dense on this?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
No I wouldn't. He hasn't won a single state and represents half the voting presence of either candidate at best. He isn't going to win the primary and shouldn't be expected to get as much time to speak as those who will. Now, if he was ignored in favour of giving more air time to Dennis Kucinich I'd be a bit pissed...
Meeting the minimum requirements does not denote a garuntee of parity of time with the actually successful candidates up on the stage. And how can you support having minimum requirements for access to a debate, outside of 'is running for president in the Republican or Democratic party,' if you believe that all candidates should be given equal time at debates?
Well that's a stupid question. Access to a debate, and then ethical guidelines of a debate are wholly different things. If you don't have minimum requirements, I could do a Stephen Colbert and register in one state and then demand entry into the debates. Without requirements you'd have thousands of candidates on stage.
There has to be SOME sort of guidelines as to who can participate or the value of a debate becomes null. However, for there truly to be a "debate" then you must allow all participants time to speak. If you have people not speaking at a debate, then you should not invite them. If you cannot create fair requirements that would exclude those candidates from participating, then you shouldn't be deciding who gets to speak in the first place.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
California - 173 delegates (Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
New York - 101 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans only) //MCCAIN//
Georgia - 72 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Illinois - 70 delegates //MCCAIN//
Missouri - 58 delegates (Winner Takes All) //HUCKABEE//
Tennessee - 55 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Arizona - 53 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
New Jersey - 52 delegates (Winner Takes All) //MCCAIN//
Alabama - 48 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Colorado - 46 delegates (Republicans only) //ROMNEY//
Massachusetts - 43 delegates //MCCAIN//
Minnesota - 41 delegates //MCCAIN//
Oklahoma - 41 delegates (Republicans only) //HUCKABEE//
Utah - 36 delegates (Winner Takes All) //ROMNEY//
Arkansas -34 delegates //HUCKABEE//
Connecticut - 30 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN//
West Virginia - 30 delegates //MCCAIN//
Alaska - 29 delegates (Republicans Only) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
North Dakota - 26 delegates //NO POLLS AVAILABLE//
Montana - 25 delegates (Winner Takes All) //NO POLLS AVAILABLE// *my guess is Romney*
Delaware - 18 delegates (Winner Takes All, Republicans Only) //MCCAIN// **Giuliani was winning, votes go to 2nd place
As you can see from this lineup, I don't even have to add it up to see McCain is winning by a large margin. However, when it comes to second place, it's very reaching to say Romney is in that position.
I even made it easy for you guys to read, with higher delegate counts at the top.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I don't see Evangelicals as a particularly motivated voting bloc at the moment. They didn't even show up in Florida or South Carolina.
I didn't project anything for Huckabee, these results were taken by Rassmussen/Real Clear Politics polls. In the cases where Huckabee was a close leader, his second place was always McCain, not Romney.
Also you'll note that "evangelicals," as they like to call Christians that aren't Catholic, did show up in both Florida and South Carolina as expected. In South Carolina their vote was split between Huckabee and Thompson. Florida isn't a social republican hotbed, the counties that do represent those values are in the panhandle area, and you can see from CNN Politics that some went for Romney and some went to Huckabee depending on the county.
So I hate to say it, but not really: You're wrong.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Ron Paul is projected to win Alaska.
Apparently he also might win Maine. If he wins more than two states, I'd say his campaign was a success considering his positions in a Republican nomination process. I went ahead and put Paul up for Alaska on this page's quote of the breakdown.
As for how they choose delegates per state, you'd have to read the official Republican National Convention documentation as to how they choose because it's hard for me to put it into words easily. Basically everybody gets a base amount + Republican officials + Amount of population that is registered/voted Republican in previous elections. Here's a PDF of the rules. http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Yeah, they're certainly batting a thousand.
He has a chance but I have a feeling it will go to Romney. He's also campaigning there. Second place is very possible though.
My hope is that he'll get enough decent finishes in some states ahead of any one of the three so he justifies continued debate inclusion and the media doesn't completely write him out of the narrative
So much hate.
I wouldn't worry too much. If he runs 3rd party despite the lefties he'll pull, he still takes more away from the conservatives. He'll hand Obama the election and tank the GOP candidate.
Have some faith man. It's not all piss and vinegar. At least your candidate gets speaking time at the debates. I think America can elect a progressive. If they don't this year they never will. Don't be so fatalistic. I'm pulling for the guy too.