Predictions: When do Hillary and Huck drop out?

posted at 10:55 am on March 4, 2008 by Allahpundit

Anyone see any scenario at this point aside from an increasingly unlikely Obama sweep that knocks our gal out of the race? Ohio looks like it’s in the bag; if Ohio’s in the bag then theoretically Pennsylvania’s in the bag and we get six more weeks of glorious Democratic winter. A split hurts because him winning Texas will blunt her “only I can win the big states” argument but I don’t see why TNR thinks losing it would knock her out when the Rezko thing is starting to take off now, the NAFTA doublespeak is getting traction in the press, and she’s got that ABC poll about people wanting her to stay in to wave around. She’s banking on a “game-changing event,” and if anyone has the capacity to make that event happen, it’s the Macbeths. Onward to Philadelphia!

If she does pull the upset in Texas, though, watch out tonight for Clinton math. Winning the popular vote doesn’t necessarily guarantee more delegates; on the contrary, it sounds from this like the Messiah could drop both states and still end up with a net pick-up, assuming the margin in Ohio is close. Would that change her mind about staying in? Nah.

Texas apportions delegates via a complicated system that gives Obama’s voters more say than Clinton’s. About two-thirds of the state’s 193 delegates are awarded state Senate district by state Senate district. The delegates in each of those 31 districts are divvied up according to the popular vote within the district. However, those districts that reliably vote Democratic have more delegates. African-American areas in the big cities, and the liberal enclave of Austin, both likely to be Obama strongholds, have the most delegates. Latino areas along the border, which will probably favor Clinton, have somewhat fewer. The votes of those rural whites who support Clinton will have the least weight because they live in red districts. Unlike states such as Ohio, Texas does not give a lump-sum prize to the winner of the statewide popular vote.

After the polls close, at 7 p.m. CST in most of the state, 7 p.m. MST in El Paso, the day’s second act begins. And it too seems to favor Obama, who is more popular than Clinton with the party’s activist base. Sixty-seven of the state’s delegates are apportioned via caucuses that take place in polling places after the primary voting is done.

As for Huck, he’s whined enough the past two weeks about not giving up until McCain clinches mathematically so unless he’s changed his mind about that senate run, the deadline for which is March 10, it’s strictly a numbers game. The Journal says Maverick needs 177 of the 265 delegates up for grabs today to clinch; the CNN delegate totals suggest he needs only 144, which should be do-able — unless you discount the 70 unpledged delegates he’s earned, as Huckabee’s apt to do, in which he case he needs 214, which ain’t happening. Mississippi’s up next Tuesday, where Huck should do well, and after the Vicki Iseman story and Maverick’s public finance troubles, he can pray semi-realistically for a game-changing event too. If he can stay alive through next week than he’s probably alive until Pennsylvania, where McCain will finally put him out of his jolly misery.

Long story short: Another month of easy content for Hot Air. Sweet.

Update: Tough talk from Mark Penn. If she gets swept, she’s done, I say.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Please don’t cross over today and vote Hillary unless you can live with another President Clinton in November. Rush Limbaugh- the same guy pushing her today- said many times over the last year that there is an 80% chance she will be elected president.

Absolutely nothing has changed except we have the worst possible Republican nominee which makes here election that much more likely. If you’re going to cross over, take out the Clinton machine. Vote Obama.

Valiant on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Long story short: Another month of easy content for Hot Air. Sweet.

Indeed. IMO Hillary will only go if she is drug out kicking and sreaming as they are sweeping up at the Dim convention. Huckabee has said he will stay in until either he or McCain have the magic number of delegates for the nomination. I believe he will stay in until then.

kcd on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM

When is McCain going to drop out? Is he gonna drag this thing out all the way until election day?

He must have got the message by now that he doesn’t have a chance and that his nomination would ensure a Democrat super majority in both houses of Congress.

Buddahpundit on March 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM

I think it’s a shame that we are going to have to do so much negative campaigning. Negatives don’t win votes; they keep people from voting.

McCain is pulling a third to half of the voters that either Obama or Clinton are attracting to the polls. Also the fact that people are already holding their noses and talking about McCain as a one-term candidate is pathetic.

It’s hard to tell Democrats that they suck, when we are looking pretty vapid ourselves.

The Race Card on March 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

As I’ve posted before: Regardless of what happens today, I won’t count Hillary out until I walk into the voting booth in November and don’t see her name on the ballot.

Lee on March 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

When do Hillary and Huck drop out?

Huckabee won’t till the convention selects McCain, but he’s been pretty much ignored and will continue to be.
Hillary! will likely have to be forcibly removed from the premises if/when Obama gets the nod, and I don’t ever expect her to drop out on her own.
That just isn’t in the Clinton character demeanor…

Mindfists on March 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Hillary – Never, Huckamania 9:00 CST

By the way Dick Morris’ expert opinion has been wrong from May until now. At what point does Fox drop this pud?

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I think McCain can beat Hillary in November, because I don’t see a large black turnout and her getting 90% of it like Bill did.

Labamigo on March 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM

RE: When do Hillary and Huckabee drop out?

There is no reason for either of them to drop out as long as they continue to get free press coverage, and as long as they continue to get some campaign contributions.

Making speeches is what politicians do. As long as they can attract a crowd, they will be there to blow hot air.

Why do you expect either of them to quit before the votes are counted?

rockhauler on March 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM

If he can stay alive through next week than he’s probably alive until Pennsylvania, where McCain will finally put him out of his jolly misery.

What does it matter. The GOP was doomed to defeat the minute the unrealistic, hate-filled Rudy/McCain wing took over the mechanics and manipulated the primaries to kick out the social conservatives and “Jesus freaks.” They are going have to live with that result as all the so-called moderates that they think are their “friends” merrily go out and vote for the Democrat. Turns out he that gives the middle finger first gets it last! I really hope out of the ashes of the GOP these evil people are kicked to the curb.

As to Clinton, she’s not going to give up so easily. This is her one shot at the job she sees as her destiny. If she keeps it close tonight, she has reasonable hope of winning in PA.

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Absolutely nothing has changed except we have the worst possible Republican nominee which makes here election that much more likely. If you’re going to cross over, take out the Clinton machine. Vote Obama.

Valiant on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I am really torn about these two. On the one hand I too want the clintons to just fade away, but, Obama scares the sh%t out of me! He is a marxist and so is his wife. He thinks the same as she does, “oh how deprived her life as a black woman was”, kept down by “the white man” BS. She expresses it and he keeps it under his hat…for now. Also I think he means what he says about taking the troops out of Iraq immediately. I think Hillary says she will, just to please her base, but she knows she will not be the dimacrat who loses in Iraq and she knows she will have to follow through in Iraq. It’s not like that would be the first lie she has told in order to get what she wants, right?

kcd on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Shillary will bomb out big time today, if she doesn’t drop out by the end of the week, she will graciously exit following the Pennsylvania primary.

Huckaschmuck will most likely still be campaigning well after Inauguration Day.

But by that time, few will give a damn.

pilamaye on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

She’s in til the end. Huck will drop out as soon as McCain gets enough delegates to secure the nomination. Could be this week.

ThackerAgency on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Hill & Huck ’08

JayHaw Phrenzie on March 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Huck. Dude. Buh-bye? Okay? No, please. Go be a Senator.

Sugar Land on March 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM

True Hillary wants to stay in because the back room deals are the clintons best option. Hillary will start to reach McCain’s age real soon and they need to take their shot now.

Hucks only reason to stay in is to get delegates to force some kind of deal at the convention in his favor. What kind of deal is hard to say ?

William Amos on March 4, 2008 at 11:17 AM

I want a gloriously messy continued primary and convention. It would be great to see.

Also, I think McCain can beat Shrillary much more easily than he can beat Obama. Thus, if I were to become a Limbaugh Democrat for the PA primary next month, I make the vote strategically.

Darksean on March 4, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Did Texas adopt the voting rules of Mexico when I wasn’t watching?

Whatever happened to the democratic process? The Democrats have turned elections into a three ring circus.

One man, one vote, add ‘em up, somebody wins and the other somebody loses.

Works for me.

fogw on March 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Vote Obama.

Valiant on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Yes! Bring down all opposition to Al Burack Hussein so he could start campaigning right away without the convention. Such great ideas have you, wonder i am why McCain didn’t hire you as strategist.

Aristotle on March 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Hey allah can we have a losers thread for Kucinich and Ron Paul ? They are both facing eliminaiton today. Only wish I could cast a vote against either one of them.

Predicition Kucinich stays in and ron paul is thrown out. Dems love loonies more than republicans.

William Amos on March 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM

I say, less politics, more cute animal videos on hotair.

madmonkphotog on March 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM

If Hillary wins TX and OH; I think it’s humpin’ robot time. No? It’s been a long time :(

lorien1973 on March 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM

I say, less politics, more cute animal humping robot videos on hotair.

Fixed that!

lorien1973 on March 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM

The delegate count is so close and the dems have no winner take all states so it will continue to be close. I see no reason why Hillary would drop out until the convention fight is over.

jukin on March 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Maybe slipping them both a dose of LSD would help?

“Turn on, tune in, drop out.”

soulsirkus on March 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Huck will drop out as soon as McCain gets enough delegates to secure the nomination he gets more delegates than Mitt. Could be this week.

ThackerAgency on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Fixed it for ya.

BacaDog on March 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Huckabee will drop out as soon as he is hired to head the John Edwards School of Economics and Architecture.

Hillary will drop out when the Secret Service removes her claws from Obama’s throat and locks her up.

NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 11:27 AM

six more weeks of glorious Democratic winter

Heh. Made my day.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Important Question!
I want to know who Hot Air conservatives would rather have in the Oval Office, Hillary or Obama.
When you break it all the way down to that simple question, well, then you know what to do.
I have heard twice in the last 2 or 3 days that unless Obama gets 85% of the remaining delegates, he will not reach that magic number, and Hillary can take it all the way to a brokered convention. Is this true? I’m guessing the super-delegates play into this somehow, but I’m clueless in that regard.

shibumiglass on March 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Hillary has spent her adult life campaigning for the presidency. If she loses today, she will make deals with super delegates. If all else fails and Obama becomes the nomineee, she will vote for McCain. She will figure that he is a one-termer because of his age, and so she can try again in 2012.

whyme on March 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I’m relieved. If the Huckster were leading, we’d be treated to weekly doses of him as lead performer on SNL. This way he can bask in the poltical limelight for a while longer, then host his own TV game show and mercifully be where he belongs.

a capella on March 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Important Question!
I want to know who Hot Air conservatives would rather have in the Oval Office, Hillary or Obama.

Hillary.

kcd on March 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Give me a break. Hate-filled? The most insidious, filthy hate campaign of the season was waged by the Huck evangelicals against Mormon Mitt (“Jesus and Satan are brothers?”) in Iowa. You don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to hate.

The_Freeze on March 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Important Question!
I want to know who Hot Air conservatives would rather have in the Oval Office, Hillary or Obama.

Hillary.
Obama is just too inexperienced and stupid imo.

ArmyAunt on March 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM

“If all else fails and Obama becomes the nomineee, she will vote for McCain. She will figure that he is a one-termer because of his age, and so she can try again in 2012.”

Agree and not only will she vote for McCain, she’ll torpedo Obama from behind the scenes, to give her a chance to run again in 2012.

She’s done if she loses the general election but if she loses the primary, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012.

NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Hillary, hands down. My husband even agrees. Obama may just be Messianic, because until a month ago, no way he would think anybody could be worse for him and his colleagues than Hillary.

I’m not quite sure I should thank God for this small miracle, but it is one regardless.

ArmyAunt…..saw your link. Er, is it legit?

funky chicken on March 4, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Oh yeah, those Rudy supporters sure are a hate-filled bunch, aren’t they? I’ve seen lots of Rudy supporters saying stuff like this:

JOHN MCCAIN GOING OUT AFTER RUMSFELD IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO MURTHA GOING OUT AFTER THOSE MARINES. Both situations are politicians doing and saying stuff that undermines the military and it is just as evil when McCain does it as it is when Murtha or Durbin does it.

highhopes on February 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Snort. Unhinged love, not hate I guess.

funky chicken on March 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Huck drops out tonite and Hillary stays in to split the dem party

ConservativePartyNow on March 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Hillary isn’t going anywhere, and anyone who thinks she is is on the same stuff that Moses was on…

By the way, I believe I saw Michelle Obama’s picture on a milk carton this morning… or has she just been relegated to the Witness Protection Program?

D2Boston on March 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Definitely prefer Hillary to Obama. That’s only a measure of how freaky Obama and his coterie are….it’s quite an accomplishment to be worse than HIllary’s terrible crew.

Speaking truth to Power

posted Monday, 3 March 2008
Samantha Power is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, and she has a professorship at Harvard (in something called “Global Leadership and Public Policy”). She is also a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. This isn’t an honorific: she has worked for Obama in Washington, she has campaigned for him around the country, and she doesn’t hesitate to speak for him. This morning, the Washington Post has a piece on Obama’s foreign policy team, identifying her (and retired Maj. Gen. Scott Garion) as “closest to Obama, part of a group-within-the-group that he regularly turns to for advice.” Power and Garion “retain unlimited access to Obama.” This morning’s New York Times announces that Power has an “irresistable profile” and “she could very well end up in [Obama's] cabinet.”

She also has a problem: a corpus of critical statements about Israel. These have been parsed by Noah Pollak at Commentary’s blog Contentions, by Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker, and by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line.

Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention…. Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

It isn’t too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel’s leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel’s security to the upkeep of a “mammoth protection force” and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our “principles.”

funky chicken on March 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM

where McCain will finally put him out of his jolly misery.

I googled the unique word combination of “jolly misery“, and only 4 occurrences were spotted…You da man with a cynically funny bone, for sure, AP.

Entelechy on March 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM

It’s hard to tell Democrats that they suck, when we are looking pretty vapid ourselves.

The Race Card on March 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

TRC, it’s really hard when all three candidates suck. How did this country get to here?

Btw, love your comments.

Entelechy on March 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Entelechy on March 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM

I think i gonna regret asking this, but what the hell.

Do you actually google everything AP says?

Aristotle on March 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Do you actually google everything AP says?

Aristotle on March 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM

NO

Btw, love your nome de plume.

Entelechy on March 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Give me a break. Hate-filled? The most insidious, filthy hate campaign of the season was waged by the Huck evangelicals against Mormon Mitt (”Jesus and Satan are brothers?”) in Iowa. You don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to hate.

The_Freeze on March 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM

That was a really, really low thing to do, especially by a so-called man-of-God. Mitt didn’t smear anyone. He ran the cleanest campaign. His ads were “contrast ads”, comparing his record to other’s records and ol’ Huckster couldn’t handle it. Mitt had to govern in a very liberal state, just like Pawlenty here in MN. I might add, that Pawlenty is doing a good job holding his own against a DFL (dumb f#$%ing liberals) controlled house and senate and liberal news outlets.

And, another thing, you can say hello to Senator Al Franken next fall, too.

Thanks for listening to me as I had to rant and get this out of my system.

cjs1943 on March 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM

The_Freeze on March 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Interesting answer. I point out the way the hate-filled Rudy/McCain wing of the GOP rigged the primaries. You respond by telling me that Huckabee was far more hate-filled vis-a-vis Romney. It’s a nice sequitor but Romney was forced out and Huckabee really doesn’t matter.

The Rudy/McCain wing is still waging a vendetta against anybody who doesn’t become an abject apologist for McCain- using Clintonian parsing to make that bitter dried up dinosaur relevant in a race that he shouldn’t be running in.

To a certain degree, I’m happy. For most of the GWB administration, I agreed with enough of what he was doing about the GWOT to support him on issues where he and I had some disagreement. Not so with you all who are out to get revenge on social conservatives and “Jesus freaks.” Should McCain pull off a stunning upset and get into office, he can count on the GOP base to treat him like a party in opposition to all the liberal initiatives that will undoubtedly come out in an administration so unfit to lead the nation as any one that could be assembled by war hero and political traitor John McCain.

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Hillary needs to make the claim, especially if she loses Texas (she won’t), that SHE has won states that will matter in the general election. Obama has won a lot of red states.

I love seeing the democrats twistin’ in the wind because what they’re doing with their nomination process is the same stuff that crowd tries to teach kids. If you lose it’s okay, you’ll get a prize anyways! This also exactly why proportional awarding of the Electoral College is a BAD IDEA!

Hillary in a 4-state sweep, with a very narrow win in Texas further driving the wedge between blacks and latinos.

SouthernGent on March 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Unless Hillary’s blown out in TX and OH – which doesn’t seem likely, to say the least – the only meaningful pressure on her to get out will come from a few party leaders and possible endorsers anxious to shut this thing down. If she feels she’s regained momentum, she’ll swat the weak stuff away like Dikembe Mutombo. Dem voters are still overwhelmingly in favor of the contest continuing, and will likely remain so after tonight.

The theme may turn to “BO can’t close the deal,” and may even get ugly for him: “BO can’t stand the heat,” “Angry BO supporters threaten violence,” etc., along with whatever burbles up from Rezko-land and elsewhere. Relative slippage in the polls similar to what’s lately been showing in Rasmussen might also help Hillary’s argument that Dems start should view her as more electable. That said, unless his campaign totally collapses, it’s virtually impossible for HRC to re-gain the pledged delegate lead or the counted raw vote lead. If she wins Pennsylvania by a wide margin, her argument at least for re-voting MI and FL will be strengthened.

Another open question: If she’s seen as having benefited from going negative, will Barack return fire and escalate?

It could be a long hot Summer in Democrat-land. About the only thing that could save them from that would be a) a bolt from the blue (escalating scandal, war, death) or b) a deal from the depths.

CK MacLeod on March 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM

The reason the Democrats all love their choice of candidates and the Republicans are “less than thrilled” is because we have much higher standards and morals than the Dems. Even our 3rd or 4th choice for GOPers is still far better than anything the Dems have come up with.

I like Rush’s concept of voting for Ms. Rodham in the primaries to keep the pressure on B.O. but on the other hand, the Clintons are snakes and the sooner you chop off it’s head, the less likey it can come back and bite you. Hillary and her band of flying monkeys are a threat until the very end and I feel uncomfortable with “playing” around with her just to stir the pot. It’s time to put the stake in once and for all.

From what I’ve seen and read about B.O. he is definitely beatable on substance. Style will only get you so far. Will the followers of the losing dem candidate flock to the winner or will they just stay home disgusted and not participate or will they change loyalties and vote D regardless?

I’m here in Iraq and Alajezeera LOVES Obama so that tells you something about the company you keep.

JetBlast on March 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Hillary will take the battle all the way to the convention. Her hope is that some of the mud that is slung between now and the convention will stick to Obama and that delegates will flock to her in a brokered convention, after the Obama bubble bursts. The only other way she can win the nomination is for Obama to be assassinated.

If she wins through continued mud-slinging, because of her already high negatives, she will lose many blacks, independents and the newer, younger voters that Obama has been attracting for the general election. This will probably result in a McCain win in November. Therefore, her best hope for being elected in November is a combination of an Obama assassination and taking advantage of the resultant sympathy vote.

NuclearPhysicist on March 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Not so with you all who are out to get revenge on social conservatives and “Jesus freaks.”

You’re nuts. McCain and most McCain supporters have treated Social Conservatives with respect, soliciting their support and defending them against unfair attack. (I don’t claim to be an “evangelical” myself, but I have close and sympathetic personal and familial ties among churchgoers who’d be included.) I doubt you’ll find a single usage of the epithet “Jesus freaks” on HotAir or anywhere else except in your own posts.

There have been some regrettable attacks on Huckabee that in my opinion have gone over the line, but those have rarely if ever come from the McCain camp. They’ve been much more typical of a handful of commentators who believed rightly or wrongly that Huckabee was standing in the way of their favored candidates Thompson or Romney.

Nowadays, the hate in these parts almost always comes from anti-McCain voices like your own – people who toss off baseless slanders like “filled his pockets with lobbyist’s money” or who can be found upping the rhetorical ante whenever the discussion of illegal immigration comes up – and then usually react with shock and hurt feelings when called out.

CK MacLeod on March 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Obama scares the sh%t out of me!
kcd on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

McCain would not beat Obama.

Even the Las Vegas Odds makers are predicting an Obama win over McCain.

The only Republican who can defeat Obama is Huckabee.

Real Hope trumps False Hope.

Red Pill on March 4, 2008 at 1:29 PM

CK MacLeod on March 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM

You’re nuts. McCain and most McCain supporters have treated Social Conservatives with respect, soliciting their support and defending them against unfair attack.

That’s absolute BS. McCain said as much in his CPAC “my way or the highway” comments. McCain constantly tells social conservatives to f**k off if they don’t agree. Finally, I am not a racist or unpatriotic because I am against amnesty for illegal aliens yet I’ve been called that by McCain. He is nothing but a mean bitter old man who still resents the fact that he lost in 2000 because social conservatives didn’t want to nominate a RINO. He and you, his minions, have been seeking revenge ever since South Carolina in early 2000.

Nowadays, the hate in these parts almost always comes from anti-McCain voices like your own – people who toss off baseless slanders like “filled his pockets with lobbyist’s money” or who can be found upping the rhetorical ante whenever the discussion of illegal immigration comes up – and then usually react with shock and hurt feelings when called out.

McCain was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. That’s hardly a “baseless slander.” And yes, for the record, it upsets me greatly to be called a racist or unpatriotic when somebody like you becomes a useless stooge of the McCain/Rudy wing of the DNC. Grow up and start using some critical thinking skills instead of attacking me for not blindly supporting a political traitor like John McCain.

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM

McCain and most McCain supporters have treated Social Conservatives with respect

CK MacLeod on March 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM

I agree with you. Most of the vulgarity that I have been attacked with has come from Romney supporters (who consider me a child of Satan) and from Democrat trolls.

Red Pill on March 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Huck will never drop out… Even when Obama becomes President, he will still roam around with his fake metaphors and still receive money by speaking at Churches.

iamse7en on March 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Saying that McCain cannot beat Obama 8 months before the general election is ridiculous. Three months ago, Las Vegas odds makers predicted Hillary easily winning the Democrat nomination. 8 months is a ling time in political terms and Obama has to endure those 8 months without the current Obama bubble bursting. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

NuclearPhysicist on March 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Huckabee isn’t running for president in 2008 any more — He’s running to become the designated spokesman for the evangelical conservative wing of the Republican Party for the next four years, in order to put him in better position for another presidential run in 2012. Dropping out now would drop his profile as low as all the other ex-GOP hopefuls, so he stays in the race, but doesn’t really do anything to attack McCain, because he doesn’t want to alienate any more Republicans when the nomination now is a foregone conclusion.

As for Hillary vs. Obama, I went back and forth for the past couple of weeks before finally deciding to go with Barak in today’s Texas primary (I’m in a county where virtually all the down-ballot races are on the Democratic side, but which went for Bush over Kerry in 2004). The past couple of days with the NAFTA kerfuffle, the Rezko trial and Saturday Night Live’s skits shaming the press into taking a slightly tougher look at Obama, I came down on the side that even if she narrowly loses both Texas and Ohio, she’s not quitting for at least another month, and will probably hold on after that, in hopes that some outside issue will derail Barak’s juggernaut.

(Also, the Clinton machine is the absolute masters of spin, and there are still lots of people at the big media willing to accept it without question. Even though Hillary was up by double-digits over Obama in both Ohio and Texas a month ago, if the missus pulls out even the narrowest of wins tonight, her people will spin it as a major momentum shift, and a sign that Obama’s campaign is on its last legs. And a large portion of the press on Wednesday will parrot those lines, and designate Hillary as the frontrunner again and question whether Obama really is ready for a big-time fight for the nomination.)

jon1979 on March 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM

highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I don’t have the time or inclination to refute your post in detail. It wouldn’t be appropriate to this thread. If I thought you were capable of viewing these matters in a balanced way, I’d urge you to review the Keating 5 case for what it was. More generally, you and your allies would do yourselves a lot of good politically if you separated yourselves explicitly and rigorously from the bigots, extremists, and nuts instead of simply denying or ignoring their existence, where not echoing them, and if you otherwise took the beam out of your own eye before criticizing the speck in your brother’s.

CK MacLeod on March 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM

“McCain said as much in his CPAC “my way or the highway” comments. McCain constantly tells social conservatives to f**k off if they don’t agree.”

You have no evidence of this except in your fevered imagination.

Let’s conjur up reasons and ways to lose elections to Democrats – that’s how “conservatives” “think” now?

“Grow up and start using some critical thinking skills instead of attacking me for not blindly supporting a political traitor like John McCain.”

John McCain has suffered more for this country and has done more for this country than you could possibly imagine. You’re a jackass for using his name and “traitor” in the same sentence. You don’t agree with him, fine. But you anti-McCainiacs are marginalizing yourselves with this stuff.

Keep it up doing exactly what the Democrats want you to do by maligning McCain. I’d rather do what the Democrats don’t want me to do. John McCain will be a good President, especially in contrast to the two absolute pieces of garbage the Democrats have to offer.

NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM

I’m an Ohio voter and as hard as it was to do it, I crossed over today and voted for Hillary. My reasons for doing so are:
1) The longer this thing drags out for the democrats the better it is for us, Hillary will play dirty until the convention, whereas Mccain will not.
2) As much as I hate Hillary I would much rather have her in the WH than Obama. The more I hear this guy talk the less I like him.
3) If Obama wins the delegates and somehow Hillary gets enough superdelegates to win the nomination, all hell will break lose in the Democratic party and many disgruntled voters will not turn out (i.e. the youth vote and the black vote.)

Erockk on March 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM

The Huckster stays in until McCain finally wraps it up, unfortunately, because Huckabee loves the free media attention.

Make no mistake, he’s in this race for only one reason… and it’s not go give conservatives a choice, it’s not to advance any movement, it’s to advance Mike Huckabee.

The movement he advances within me is my bowels. He can’t possibly go away quick enough.

As for Hillary, she fights to the end. Hopefully. Seeing the libs in a pissing match would be a lot of fun.

bigred on March 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM

TRC, it’s really hard when all three candidates suck. How did this country get to here?

Btw, love your comments.

Entelechy on March 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Some of us sharp. Some of us are flat. Entelechy, you are the harmonizing groove of many threads.

Good day to ya!

The Race Card on March 4, 2008 at 4:11 PM

NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Hear, hear!

funky chicken on March 4, 2008 at 5:22 PM

I’m hoping for a brokered convention for the Donkeys. So NO DROPPING OUT!!!!

jimbo2008 on March 4, 2008 at 5:38 PM