God, why can't they just hold a primary like normal people?

The Democrats' way of doing this is ridiculous, convoluted and basically as stupid as the electoral college.

Well, Romney can go suck on that. Huckabee already declared the winner.

Ok, New Hampshire, bring us back from the brink.

Not to take everyone's attention away from the all important Iowa caucus, but I just came across this little snippet, and now I'm especially glad I've god a chunk of gold (etf) in my portfolio:

"The president has indicated that he will not make up his mind as to whether or not to lay out a package until the State of the Union," Perino said about the president's speech on Jan. 28. "Our economic policy is like our military policy. It is based on conditions on the ground and the president listens to advice from his economic advisers."

(I highlighted the particularly disturbing part)

so when someone goes from 33% to 34%, does that mean that 2 more people voted?

pacino wrote:so when someone goes from 33% to 34%, does that mean that 2 more people voted?

More like 20.

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, Romney can go suck on that. Huckabee already declared the winner.

Ok, New Hampshire, bring us back from the brink.

They will--so long as McCain comes in "a strong third" tonight.

I have this on CSPAN. It's the only TV I can think of that's simultaneously tedious and riveting. The process is achingly stupid and un-democratic (especially on the Dem side), but it is dramatic. My stomach is actually churning a little.

In other news, a colleague of mine who knows much more about politics than I do (and worked on the '96 Clinton campaign) thinks that Bloomberg will not run if Clinton is the Dem nominee--meaning that for me it's really double-or-nothing on Obama...

http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/

Dem results only.

Disco Stu wrote:10% reporting and Edwards has 40%

Evidently the rural precincts report first (smaller groups). Everyone knew Edwards would "win" there, so this probably isn't super-significant.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, Romney can go suck on that. Huckabee already declared the winner.

Ok, New Hampshire, bring us back from the brink.

They will--so long as McCain comes in "a strong third" tonight.

I have this on CSPAN. It's the only TV I can think of that's simultaneously tedious and riveting. The process is achingly stupid and un-democratic (especially on the Dem side), but it is dramatic. My stomach is actually churning a little.

In other news, a colleague of mine who knows much more about politics than I do (and worked on the '96 Clinton campaign) thinks that Bloomberg will not run if Clinton is the Dem nominee--meaning that for me it's really double-or-nothing on Obama...

So, basically, you support a guy who's first choice is Hillary.

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:10% reporting and Edwards has 40%

Evidently the rural precincts report first (smaller groups). Everyone knew Edwards would "win" there, so this probably isn't super-significant.

So you're saying Obama gets the "urban" vote.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:10% reporting and Edwards has 40%

Evidently the rural precincts report first (smaller groups). Everyone knew Edwards would "win" there, so this probably isn't super-significant.

So you're saying Obama gets the "urban" vote.

he got the black guy AND the hipster that voted

both of 'em, what a coup

zOMG, the RNC Chair thinks that all of the Republicans are better than the Democrats.

This is why I don't watch cable news unless it's an election night. This crap is so dumb.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, Romney can go suck on that. Huckabee already declared the winner.

Ok, New Hampshire, bring us back from the brink.

They will--so long as McCain comes in "a strong third" tonight.

I have this on CSPAN. It's the only TV I can think of that's simultaneously tedious and riveting. The process is achingly stupid and un-democratic (especially on the Dem side), but it is dramatic. My stomach is actually churning a little.

In other news, a colleague of mine who knows much more about politics than I do (and worked on the '96 Clinton campaign) thinks that Bloomberg will not run if Clinton is the Dem nominee--meaning that for me it's really double-or-nothing on Obama...

So, basically, you support a guy who's first choice is Hillary.

No, it's not that. My colleague's theory is that Bloomberg won't run unless he thinks he can win, and that means "starting with" NY, NJ, CT, FL, and CA. Clinton takes the first three states out of play.

My theory was that Bloomberg would run against anyone except Obama, because he doesn't want to be the guy who stops Obama, or McCain, because he has a man-crush on McCain.(Note: this might also have been wishful thinking on my part.) In terms of the electoral map, however, my colleague's theory makes more sense.

My right testicle could beat Romney in a national election. And my left one is the stronger of the two.

jerseyhoya wrote:zOMG, the RNC Chair thinks that all of the Republicans are better than the Democrats.

This is why I don't watch cable news unless it's an election night. This crap is so dumb.

Duncan Hunter FTW!

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, Romney can go suck on that. Huckabee already declared the winner.

Ok, New Hampshire, bring us back from the brink.

They will--so long as McCain comes in "a strong third" tonight.

I have this on CSPAN. It's the only TV I can think of that's simultaneously tedious and riveting. The process is achingly stupid and un-democratic (especially on the Dem side), but it is dramatic. My stomach is actually churning a little.

In other news, a colleague of mine who knows much more about politics than I do (and worked on the '96 Clinton campaign) thinks that Bloomberg will not run if Clinton is the Dem nominee--meaning that for me it's really double-or-nothing on Obama...

So, basically, you support a guy who's first choice is Hillary.

No, it's not that. My colleague's theory is that Bloomberg won't run unless he thinks he can win, and that means "starting with" NY, NJ, CT, FL, and CA. Clinton takes the first three states out of play.

My theory was that Bloomberg would run against anyone except Obama, because he doesn't want to be the guy who stops Obama, or McCain, because he has a man-crush on McCain.(Note: this might also have been wishful thinking on my part.) In terms of the electoral map, however, my colleague's theory makes more sense.

I'd be pretty pissed if Obama or even Edwards is the nominee and Bloomberg runs. Just another ego-tripping billionaire.

Obama is looking like he's easing away with this just a bit.

I'm drinking now. I hate my party.

http://www.iowagop.net/

but it doesn't seem to be working for me.

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.iowagop.net/

but it doesn't seem to be working for me.

CNN.com is updating pretty regularly.