Posts Tagged ‘Arkansas’

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox (R-MI) for Governor

March 3, 2010

Well, in an interesting move that I’m still trying to figure out, former Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has endorsed Attorney General Mike Cox for Governor.  Here’s a copy of the press release that I received today.  I’ll give my analysis after the press release:

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox in 2010 Race for Governor

Huckabee: “Mike Cox best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor”

     LIVONIA, MI— One of America’s most respected conservative leaders, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee today formally endorsed Mike Cox in the 2010 race for Governor.

     “Mike Cox is best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor,” said Huckabee. “Mike is an innovative, strong leader who is not afraid to take a stand on an important issue. He is opposed to the runaway tax and spend policies we are seeing at the federal and state levels.”

     Cox’s message of less spending, lower taxes and reformed government has set him apart in Michigan’s race for Governor. Cox recently drew a crowd of 1,200 families, activists and community leaders to a Rally for Michigan’s Future in Oakland County and hundreds more last weekend to the Grand Opening of his campaign headquarters in Livonia.

     “Mike Huckabee is one of our nation’s most respected leaders,” said Cox. “Mike Huckabee continues to fight for more liberty and less government. I am proud to have his support and am honored he is standing beside me as we fight to bring jobs back to Michigan.”

     Cox announced Huckabee’s endorsement first today via social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, U-Stream and conservative bloggers across Michigan.

     Huckabee has been called an early frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination scoring well in many polls including last November’s Gallup-USA Today poll. Mike Huckabee polled ahead of President Obama as recently as January 2010.

     “Mike Cox has also fought hard to protect Second Amendment rights in Michigan,” Huckabee continued. “I am proud to endorse Mike Cox for Governor of Michigan.”

     Cox is the only candidate for Governor to release a comprehensive 92 point plan to put Michigan back to work, including proposals to cut billions of dollars out of the state budget, cut taxes on job providers and families by $2 billion, make government more transparent, reform education, and revitalize our cities. The plan is available at www.mikecox2010.com. The Mike Cox 2010 Campaign also recently announced that it raised $1.8 million in 2009 – with roughly $1.5 million cash on hand. The funds came from over 2,500 individual donors – with roughly 1,000 of the contributors donating less than $100.

     For more information on Mike Cox’s campaign for Governor, please visit www.mikecox2010.com or call the campaign office today at 734-525-5035.

     About Gov. Mike Huckabee: Prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, Huckabee served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007 and as the state’s lieutenant governor from 1993-1996. As a young adult, he served as a pastor and denominational leader. He became the youngest president ever of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, the largest denomination in Arkansas. Huckabee’s efforts to improve his own health have received national attention. He is the author of 6 books, the most recent being “Do the Right Thing,” which spent its first 7 weeks of release in the top ten of the New York Times Bestseller list. He is currently the host of the top rated weekend hit “HUCKABEE” on the Fox News Channel, and is heard three times daily across the nation on the “Huckabee Report.” Huckabee and his wife, Janet, live in North Little Rock, Arkansas. They have three grown children: John Mark, David and Sarah.

#30#

Alright, so my analysis… this honestly confused me when I saw it.  I’ve been wondering for the past few hours why a Presidential candidate would jump into the gubernatorial race here in Michigan.

One thing is for sure, this is by far the biggest endorsement that I can think of for any of the current gubernatorial candidates.  The announcement definitely gives Cox more momentum than he already had (which is quite a bit – he’s been battling Congressman Pete Hoekstra, with both of them leading the polls at one time or another).  But will it help him in the long run?

In the 2008 Presidential Primaries, Huckabee got 16.08% of the vote in Michigan, with Romney winning with 38.92%, and McCain coming in second with 29.68%.  Huckabee did worst in Cox’s area of the state, but better in central and western Michigan, so that might help Cox a little bit, by diversifying his support.  So, I’d say that the best endorsement to get would’ve been Romney’s but Huckabee is still a major player in the conservative movement, and as of now, polling well for 2012.

Now, another thing that I thought about was Huckabee’s stances on law and order issues.  One of the major problems I’ve always had with Huckabee (don’t get me wrong – I like the guy) has been his stances on law and order issues as governor.  He issued a lot of pardons and commutations as governor of Arkansas (most notably, the recent scandal with Maurice Clemons who shot and killed 4 police officers in 2009).  Being an Attorney General, I’m not sure if Huckabee’s endorsement is the best thing for Mike Cox’s law and order record, but I may be reading into this more than I should.

Huckabee’s endorsement will help Cox with social conservatives, a group that may be hesitant to vote for him because of his affair back in 2005, but I think most people have (rightfully) moved on from that issue.  But the pro-life movement in Michigan is very strong, and Huckabee’s endorsement will go a long way for Cox when it comes to social issues.  Then again, with the current emphasis on the economy, social issues probably won’t be the deciding factor in who voters do vote for (although in the Republican primary, it’ll be more of an issue than in the general election).

But the most interesting thing about this, and I’ve been wondering this all day, is why would a Presidential candidate endorse a gubernatorial candidate in a primary race?  There’s 3 answers that I think it could possibly be:

  1. Huckabee has given up running for President (at least for 2012), and is going to focus on his PAC and getting Republicans elected around the country.
  2. He’s gambling that Cox will end up winning, and will help him here in Michigan in 2012.
  3. Huckabee is already counting Michigan as lost to him in 2012, and isn’t afraid of losing a few potential delegates by angering non-Cox supporters.

Option 2 and 3 make the most sense to me.  I don’t think he’s given up on running, but I don’t think Huckabee can win Michigan in 2012 if Romney runs.  Romney’s biggest competition here in Michigan was McCain, and without McCain, I think Romney would’ve gotten close to, if not more than, 50% of the vote in 2008.

He may not be publicly saying it, but I don’t think he plans on winning Michigan.  My guess would be that he’s hoping Cox will bring in some supporters (and money) in 2012, so that can offset the voters that Huckabee may lose because he’s supporting Cox.

But no matter what the outcome is for Huckabee, this definitely gives Cox a decent boost for now.  Whether or not is does anything for him come August 3rd, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican

1 Day to Go: Final Senate Prediction: Democrats Gain 7 Seats

November 3, 2008

Here’s my Senate prediction. I already did my Presidential election prediction as well as my gubernatorial elections prediction.  The colors ARE switched from what the normal media colors, so sorry about that, but that’s the way the website I use does it.  The maps are courtesy of Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas, and my most current prediction can always be found here.  On to the predictions…

* = Pickup via defeat of incumbent; ^ = Pickup of an open seat

Democrats: 19 (+7)
Republicans: 14 (-7)
Light gray indicates states with no Senate races

First, a note about Wyoming and Mississippi:

  • Wyoming has 2 races, Michael Enzi (R) against Chris Rothfuss (D) and John Barasso (R) against Nick Carter (D).  I expect both Republicans to win with results around 63%.
  • Mississippi has 2 races.  The maps are predictions for Thad Cochran (R) against Erik Fleming (D). In the election between Roger Wicker (R) and Ronnie Musgrove (D), I expect Wicker to win with around 55%, a much closer race than the other.

Alright, so let’s look at the states where people may disagree with me:

  • Arkansas: Mark Pryor is unopposed by a Republican. Rebekah Kennedy (Green) is the only opponent, so that’s why I have it so high. It’s not a mistake.
  • Alaska: 2 predictions ago, I had it going to “Uncle Ted” Stevens. Then, the jury found him guilty. I changed my prediction on the U.S. Election Atlas website, but didn’t repost a prediction here (although I did write a blog post saying that Mark Begich would win). Then, I started thinking, and I think Stevens will pull it off. Then, last prediction, I said, “I know the polls disagree (but the Research 2000 poll showing him down 22% is just wrong), but I don’t see Alaskans voting out Uncle Ted.”  Well, I just can’t justify keeping it in Uncle Ted’s column anymore.  I think it’s going to go to Mark Begich, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the “Strong” column.
  • Minnesota: I’m now confident enough in my call for Coleman, and he has been slightly leading in the polls.
  • North Carolina: I think Elizabeth Dole’s attack ad on Kay Hagan gave Hagan the edge she’ll need to win, but still I’m not confident enough to put it in the “Strong” column.

Now, the map indicating the confidence that I have that my prediction is right:

Democrats: 19 (+7)
Republicans: 14 (-7)
Tossup: 3
Light gray indicates states with no Senate races

Alright, so what changes did I make since last time, and why? Here they are:

State

Previous

Current

Reasoning

AK

R50T

D50L

I think the guilty verdict finally did it in for him.  Although I’m not going to mark it as “Strong” because those Alaskan’s sure love their Uncle Ted, and weirder things have happened.

MN

R40T

R40L

I think I’m confident enough to take it out of the Toss-Up category now.

NC

D50T

D50L

Again, I’m confident enough to make this a “Lean” instead of “Toss-Up.”

Well, there you have it – my Senatorial prediction.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

4 Days to Go: Senate Prediction: Democrats Gain 6 Seats

October 31, 2008

Here’s my Senate prediction.  I already did my Presidential election prediction as well as the Gubernatorial Elections prediction.  The colors ARE switched from what the normal media colors, so sorry about that, but that’s the way the website I use does it.  The maps are courtesy of Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas, and my most current prediction can always be found here.  On to the predictions…

* = Pickup via defeat of incumbent; ^ = Pickup of an open seat

Democrats: 16 (+6)
Republicans: 19 (-6)
Light gray indicates states with no Senate races

First, a note about Wyoming and Mississippi:

  • Wyoming has 2 races, Michael Enzi (R) against Chris Rothfuss (D) and John Barasso (R) against Nick Carter (D). I expect both Republicans to win with results around 63%.
  • Mississippi has 2 races. The maps are predictions for Thad Cochran (R) against Erik Fleming (D). In the election between Roger Wicker (R) and Ronnie Musgrove (D), I expect Wicker to win with around 51%, a much closer race than the other.

Alright, so let’s look at the states where people may disagree with me:

  • Arkansas: Mark Pryor is unopposed by a Republican.  Rebekah Kennedy (Green) is the only opponent, so that’s why I have it so high.  It’s not a mistake.
  • Alaska: Last prediction, I had it going to “Uncle Ted” Stevens.  Then, the jury found him guilty.  I changed my prediction on the U.S. Election Atlas website, but didn’t repost a prediction here (although I did write a blog post saying that Mark Begich would win).  Then, I started thinking, and I think Stevens will pull it off.  I know the polls disagree (but the Research 2000 poll showing him down 22% is just wrong), but I don’t see Alaskans voting out Uncle Ted.
  • Minnesota: Again, like last time, for every poll that comes out showing Franken ahead, a poll comes out showing Coleman ahead by the same amount.  Right now, it’s just too close to call, so I’ll keep it where I had it last week.

Now, the map indicating the confidence that I have that my prediction is right:

Democrats: 16 (+5)
Republicans: 19 (-5)
Tossup: 3
Light gray indicates states with no Senate races

Alright, so what changes did I make since last time, and why?  Here they are:

State

Previous

Current

Reasoning

AK

D50L

R50T

I don’t think they’ll vote “Uncle Ted” out.

IA

D50S

D60S

It looks like Tom Harkin will reach 60% here.

KY

R50L

R50S

Mitch McConnell seems to be making a stronger comeback, back from when it was looking like a close race.  I think he’s now safe for sure.

NE

R60S

R50S

I think this an oversight the first time I did the predictions.

NM

D60S

D50S

I think Steve Pearce (R) has gained enough support that he’ll keep Tom Udall (D) from getting above 60%.

NC

R50T

D50T

Elizabeth Dole’s “Godless” attack ad against Kay Hagan was found out to be less than true.  I think there’ll be big backlash against Dole, and I think it’ll go to Hagan, but it is still a little bit too close to call in my opinion.

OR

R40T

D50S

Like I said last week, if Gordon Smith (R) didn’t pull ahead (as he was looking like he might), I was going to slide it over to Jeff Merkley, and that’s what I did.

By Monday, when I do my final update, I should be able to take North Carolina out of the toss-up category, and if more polls come out with Begich leading by a huge margin in Alaska, I’ll switch it back to Begich.  I don’t think I’ll be able to take Minnesota out of the toss-up category, but Al Franken’s latest campaign ad controversy may help Coleman, and I may be able to slide it to the “Lean” category.

Come back here on Monday for my final prediction.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

2 Weeks Away: Senate Prediction: Democrats Gain 4 Seats

October 21, 2008

Well, just like the Presidential prediction, here are my predictions for the Senate races (percentages is the first map, with confidence being the second map).  The colors ARE switched from what the normal media colors, so sorry about that, but that’s the way the website I use does it.  The maps are courtesy of Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas, and my most current prediction can always be found here.  On to the predictions…

* = Pickup via defeat of incumbent; ^ = Pickup of an open seat

Democrats: 16 (+4)
Republicans: 19 (-4)
Light gray indicates states with no Senate races

First, a note about Wyoming and Mississippi:

  • Wyoming has 2 races, Michael Enzi (R) against Chris Rothfuss (D) and John Barasso (R) against Nick Carter (D).  I expect both Republicans to win with results around 63%.
  • Mississippi has 2 races.  The maps are predictions for Thad Cochran (R) against Erik Fleming (D).  In the election between Roger Wicker (R) and Ronnie Musgrove (D), I expect Wicker to win with around 51%, a much closer race than the other.

So, let’s have a little discussion about the states that some people might disagree with me over:

  • Arkansas: Mark Pryor is unopposed by a Republican.  Rebekah Kennedy (Green) is the only opponent.
  • Alaska: As much as I dislike him, and as much as he’s done wrong, I don’t see Alaskans voting “Uncle Ted” out of office.
  • Minnesota: Had it not been for recent polls showing Norm Coleman ahead again, I would’ve given this to Al Franken.  It could easily go back before the election though.
  • North Carolina: I don’t see voters voting Elizabeth Dole out.  They may say so in the polls now, but I think she’ll win.
  • Oregon: Probably the toughest call I had to make.  I only gave it to Gordon Smith because he’s been trending upward in the polls, but by next week, if he’s not ahead, I’ll be switching this over to Jeff Merkley.

Now, my confidence map:

So, again, like my Presidential prediction, I’ll be updating this one next Tuesday, if not before.

The Democrats could win as many as 8 new seats, but I don’t see them winning any more than maybe 6.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Did Barack Obama’s “Lipstick on a Pig” Comment Refer to Sarah Palin?

September 10, 2008

OK, so I’m sure that many of you have heard accusations that Barack Obama said the phrase “lipstick on a pig,” referring to Sarah Palin.  Let’s put that phrase into context.  This is from an Obama speech in Virginia on Tuesday:

“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush–except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics–we’re really going to shake things up in Washington.’  That’s not change.  That’s just calling something the same thing something different.  You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years.  We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

Now, the McCain campaign is claiming that Obama used that line in a response to Palin’s convention speech where she said, “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?  Lipstick.”

The McCain campaign has claimed (and I can verify this) that the crowd errupted when Obama made the comment.

McCain, while comparing Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care policy with her current (back during the primaries) policy, said the following: “I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig,” using the phrase in the traditional sense.

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman told reporters that the McCain campaign saw a “big difference” between McCain and Obama’s uses of  the phrase, saying, “McCain was referring to a policy proposal.  Obama was referring to Governor Sarah Palin.  It’s obviously disrespectful and offensive. … Who has been talking about lipstick lately?  It was obvious.  The crowd went crazy because of it.”

Another McCain/Palin spokeswoman, Maria Comella, “Barack Obama’s comments today are offensive and disgraceful.  He owes Governor Palin an apology.”

Obama adviser Anita Dunn told reporters, “The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy–the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year.  This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.”

The McCain campaign has even put up on their website, a Web ad, “Lipstick,” (viewable below), which says, “Ready to lead?  No.  Ready to smear?  Yes.”

So, what do I think?  I agree with Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR).  Let’s see what he said on Hannity and Colmes: “It’s an old expression, and I’m going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one.  I do not think he was referring to Sarah Palin; he didn’t reference her.  If you take the two sound bites together, it may sound like it.  But I’ve been a guy at the podium many times, and you say something that’s maybe a part of an old joke and then somebody ties it in.  So, I’m going to have to cut him slack.”

And I absolutely agree.  Did Obama mean it against Palin?  No.  Did the crowd think he was referring to Palin?  I think many of them did, but this doesn’t mean that that’s what Obama intended.  I think Palin’s line was stuck in the heads of some in the audience, and when they heard that, they thought it was a joke against Palin, but that’s not Obama’s fault.  Looking back, should Obama have picked a different phrase?  Probably – it wasn’t wise to use that right after Palin’s speech, just for the mere fact that some WOULD connect the two, but I don’t think it was intentional or malicious.

The McCain campaign needs to get back to the issues, not this sound bite crap.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Murderous 3rd Graders, Bullies, and Punishing Minors

April 3, 2008

So, I’m writing this post as somewhat of a follow up to my post about the 9 3rd graders who plotted to injure/kill their teacher.  After I wrote the post, Observations by the Bay wrote a comment, where he asked how I felt about this story, where a kid was consistently bullied in middle and high school.  He said, “Should these boys assaulting Eric Wolfe be given the death penalty as well,” which leads me to believe that he thought that I thought that the 3rdgraders should be given the death penalty.  I wrote back informing him that this is completely not true.  In my original post, I asked, should a 12-year-old murderer not be charged with murder (showing the flaw in not charging kids under 13 with a crime), and I think the blogger thought I meant that the 3rdgraders should be given the death penalty.  So again, I absolutely do NOT think they deserve the death penalty because at most it could only be proved that they would assault the teacher.

Let me clarify what they should be charged with.  If I were the prosecutor, I’d probably start off with a charge of conspiracy to commit first degree murder [conspiracy murder charges are always charged in the first degree because if somebody conspires to murder, it is obvious that it was premeditated] and plea bargain it down to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon).

The blogger also said that “In short, while we agree that these thoughts are not normal for the kids, you seem to blame the kids. Personally, I put my money on the parents.”  And this was my error in not posting anything on the subject.  Do I blame the kids for their ACTIONS?  Yes.  Do I blame them for the MENTALITY behind their actions?  Absolutely not.  People who argue that these “kids just didn’t know better” flat out don’t know how to parent.  These kids did know better, but the parents of these kids need to emphasize that stuff like this is wrong.  It amazes me how much we just brush off bad behavior as “just being kids” or “he has ADD” or “she’s just really overactive,” when in reality, a good 90% of the time it’s a lack of DISCIPLINE.  I’ll admit that I was hard-headed as a kid, and do you know what got me to straighten out?  Spanking.  A good set of spankings, and I was obedient (for a week or two), but then I’d be back to being stubborn.  What happened when I disobeyed?  Another spanking.  After time, I LEARNED to behave.  Positive reinforcement is important in a kid’s life, but when a kid disobeys, they need to be punished!

Now, on to the caseof Billy Wolfe from Fayetteville, AR and the bullies.  Billy, now a sophomore at Woodland Junior High School, has been bullied since he was 12 when he attended McNair Middle School.  He has been punched so hard that he has lost consciousness, needed stitches on the inside of his cheek, and his braces have gotten stuck in his cheek on 1 occasion.  The incidents have been documented on bus videotapes as well as cell phones of the aggressors themselves.

But the bullying hasn’t been just physical: “In ninth grade, a couple of the same boys started a Facebook page called ‘Every One That Hates Billy Wolfe.’  It featured a photograph of Billy’s face superimposed over a likeness of Peter Pan, and provided this description of its purpose: ‘There is no reason anyone should like billy he’s a little b*tch.  And a homosexual that NO ONE LIKES.'” (censor is mine) (New York Times).  At this point, I should note that Billy is not a homosexual.

So, what should be done in cases like this?  The bullies should be suspended after the first incident, as well as charged with assault and battery.  After the third (possibly even the second) incident, the bullies should be expelled (as well as charged with assault and battery).  They should be charged with libel for the Facebook group, specifically writing that he is a homosexual.  I also support the Wolfes’ actions to sue the bullies.  They are considering suing the Fayetteville School District as well.  My opinion on that is that the district should only be sued if it’s clear that they are not taking proper action against the bullies.  If this is happening so frequently, I’d assume that their actions haven’t been sufficient, but not knowing the background, I can’t say that for sure.  The Wolfes’ lawyer, D. Westbrook Doss Jr., said that the point of this lawsuit is not to gain monetary reparations, but to make a point that bullying has to be stopped.

I write all of this to sum up my point on punishing minors.  As with all crimes, punishments should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but there are some general guidelines that remain true most of the time.  Most kids over the age of 6 or 7 clearly know that murder is wrong.  If you kill somebody after that age, you need to be punished – I don’t care if you’re only 10 – you know that murder is wrong.  As well, bullies know that what they’re doing is wrong as well.  If it were up to me, probably 90% of the kids charged as minors would be charged and punished as adults.

This all being said, I go back to my point that discipline and values are up to the parents.  Parents need to teach their kids values and discipline them when they break the rules.  Instead of blaming medical disorders or genetics, a lot of the blame should be shifted to the parents.  This isn’t ALWAYS the case, but again, a lot of these cases where kids are diagnosed as being hyperactive or having ADD/ADHD are really just cases of poor parenting and a lack of discipline.  I’m grateful that I had parents who disciplined me, and I’m especially thankful for spanking – that’s really what kept me in line.  But parents have to be careful with spanking – don’t do it out of anger, do it out of love.  This means that 1) you need to set guidelines on how many spanks based on the action and make sure that your child knows the consequences of disobedience and 2) Don’t necessarily do it immediately after the child disobeys – make sure that you’re calm, otherwise you’re only making the situation worse.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Republican Results from Super Tuesday Primaries and Caucuses

February 15, 2008

OK, now that all of the data is finally in, and I have free time, I can give all the final numbers from Super Tuesday for the Republicans (Democrats will be the next post) (a note, if you’re viewing this on the main page, click this post’s title so that the numbers won’t overlap onto the sidebar text) (also, Tom Tancredo is included in the category of “Other” unless he was the only other, then he is listed as his own name.  The number int the parenthesis indicates the number of other candidates):

Date State Candidate Votes % Delegates RNC Delegates Total Delegates Delegate Count
5-Feb Alabama Huckabee 230,608 40.73% 20 0 20 183
  Romney 103,295 18.24% 0 0 0 293
  Thompson 1,929 0.34% 0 0 0 0
  McCain 210,989 37.26% 16 0 16 695
  Paul 15,454 2.73% 0 0 0 16
  Giuliani 2,224 0.39% 0 0 0 0
  Hunter 399 0.07% 0 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 1,257 0.22% 0 0 0 0
  Tancredo 95 0.02% 0 0 0 0
   
  Alaska Huckabee 2,672 21.89% 6 0 6
  Romney 5,378 44.07% 12 0 12
  McCain 1,894 15.52% 3 0 3
  Paul 2,050 16.80% 5 0 5
  Uncommitted 210 1.72% 0
   
  Arizona Huckabee 40,849 7.66% 0 0 0
  Romney 186,838 35.05% 0 0 0
  Thompson 9,492 1.78% 0 0 0
  McCain 255,197 47.88% 50 0 50
  Paul 22,692 4.26% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 13,658 2.56% 0 0 0
  Hunter 1,082 0.20% 0 0 0
  Keyes 970 0.18% 0 0 0
  Others (16) 2,256 0.42% 0 0 0
   
  Arkansas Huckabee 136,734 60.50% 29 3 32
  Romney 30,574 13.53% 1 0 1
  Thompson 624 0.28% 0 0 0
  McCain 45,709 20.22% 1 0 1
  Paul 10,771 4.77% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 651 0.29% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 946 0.42% 0 0 0
   
  California Huckabee 299,837 11.49% 0 0 0
  Romney 901,922 34.55% 12 0 12
  Thompson 47,302 1.81% 0 0 0
  McCain 1,097,856 42.06% 158 0 158
  Paul 110,536 4.23% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 120,754 4.63% 0 0 0
  Hunter 13,142 0.50% 0 0 0
  Keyes 10,400 0.40% 0 0 0
  Others (3) 8,608 0.33% 0 0 0
   
  Colorado Huckabee 8,960 12.76% 0 0 0
  Romney 42,218 60.11% 43 0 43
  Thompson 63 0.09% 0 0 0
  McCain 12,918 18.39% 0 0 0
  Paul 5,910 8.42% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 58 0.08% 0 0 0
  Hunter 25 0.04% 0 0 0
  Keyes 67 0.10% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 10 0.01% 0 0 0
   
  Connecticut Huckabee 10,600 6.99% 0 0 0
  Romney 49,885 32.91% 0 0 0
  Thompson 538 0.35% 0 0 0
  McCain 78,830 52.01% 27 0 27
  Paul 6,266 4.13% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,470 1.63% 0 0 0
  Hunter 136 0.09% 0 0 0
  Keyes 373 0.25% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 2,462 1.62% 0 0 0
   
  Delaware Huckabee 7,706 15.34% 0 0 0
  Romney 16,344 32.53% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 22,628 45.04% 18 0 18
  Paul 2,131 4.24% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 1,255 2.50% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 175 0.35% 0 0 0
   
  Georgia Huckabee 326,874 33.92% 45 0 45
  Romney 290,707 30.17% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,414 0.35% 0 0 0
  McCain 304,751 31.63% 3 0 3
  Paul 28,096 2.92% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 7,162 0.74% 0 0 0
  Hunter 755 0.08% 0 0 0
  Keyes 1,458 0.15% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 324 0.03% 0 0 0
   
  Illinois Huckabee 147,626 16.54% 0 0 0
  Romney 256,805 28.77% 2 1 3
  Thompson 7,100 0.80% 0 0 0
  McCain 424,071 47.52% 54 0 54
  Paul 45,166 5.06% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 11,341 1.27% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 369 0.04% 0 0 0
   
  Massachussetts Huckabee 19,168 3.87% 0 0 0
  Romney 255,248 51.50% 22 0 22
  Thompson 942 0.19% 0 0 0
  McCain 204,027 41.16% 18 0 18
  Paul 13,210 2.67% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,643 0.53% 0 0 0
  Hunter 263 0.05% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 155 0.03% 0 0 0
   
  Minnesota Huckabee 12,493 19.88% 0 0 0
**4106 of 4122 precincts** Romney 25,990 41.37% 38 2 40
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 13,826 22.01% 0 0 0
  Paul 9,852 15.68% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 368 0.59% 0 0 0
  Write-In 299 0.48% 0 0 0
   
  Missouri Huckabee 185,598 31.56% 0 0 0
  Romney 172,414 29.32% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,101 0.53% 0 0 0
  McCain 194,145 33.02% 58 0 58
  Paul 26,428 4.49% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 3,593 0.61% 0 0 0
  Hunter 306 0.05% 0 0 0
  Others (4) 364 0.06% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 2,083 0.35% 0 0 0
   
  Montana Huckabee 245 15.03% 0 0 0
  Romney 625 38.34% 25 0 25
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 358 21.96% 0 0 0
  Paul 400 24.54% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 2 0.12% 0 0 0
   
  New Jersey Huckabee 45,699 8.18% 0 0 0
  Romney 158,692 28.40% 0 0 0
  Thompson 3,135 0.56% 0 0 0
  McCain 309,842 55.45% 52 0 52
  Paul 26,913 4.82% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 14,446 2.59% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
   
  New York Huckabee 65,404 10.90% 0 0 0
  Romney 168,275 28.04% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 309,614 51.59% 87 0 87
  Paul 38,787 6.46% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 18,118 3.02% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
   
  North Dakota Huckabee 1,947 19.90% 5 0 5
  Romney 3,490 35.67% 8 0 8
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 2,224 22.73% 5 0 5
  Paul 2,082 21.28% 5 0 5
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
  Hunter 0.00% 0 0 0
  Keyes 42 0.43% 0 0 0
   
  Oklahoma Huckabee 111,899 33.40% 6 0 6
  Romney 83,030 24.78% 0 0 0
  Thompson 1,924 0.57% 0 0 0
  McCain 122,772 36.64% 32 0 32
  Paul 11,183 3.34% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 2,412 0.72% 0 0 0
  Hunter 317 0.09% 0 0 0
  Keyes 817 0.24% 0 0 0
  Others (3) 700 0.21% 0 0 0
   
  Tennessee Huckabee 190,682 34.48% 23 0 23
  Romney 130,452 23.59% 8 0 8
  Thompson 16,255 2.94% 0 0 0
  McCain 175,855 31.80% 15 0 15
  Paul 30,955 5.60% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 5,146 0.93% 0 0 0
  Hunter 736 0.13% 0 0 0
  Keyes 977 0.18% 0 0 0
  Tancredo 193 0.03% 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 1,828 0.33% 0 0 0
   
  Utah Huckabee 4,061 1.42% 0 0 0
**2240 of 2257 precincts** Romney 255,398 89.61% 36 0 36
  Thompson 575 0.20% 0 0 0
  McCain 15,276 5.36% 0 0 0
  Paul 8,311 2.92% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 930 0.33% 0 0 0
  Hunter 204 0.07% 0 0 0
  Keyes 252 0.09% 0 0 0
   
  West Virginia Huckabee 567 51.55% 18 0 18
**Convention Only** Romney 521 47.36% 0 0 0
  Thompson 0.00% 0 0 0
  McCain 12 1.09% 0 0 0
  Paul 0.00% 0 0 0
  Giuliani 0.00% 0 0 0
    Hunter   0.00% 0 0 0

And here’s a chart of the delegate count:

Republican Delegate Count after Super Tuesday

Done Adding,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Democratic Super Tuesday Results as of 1:00 A.M.

February 6, 2008

Here are the results as of 1:00 A.M.  (Bold results are too close to call):

In Alabama with 99% reporting (my last update tonight):

  1. Obama 300,832 56%
  2. Clinton 223,090 42%
  3. Edwards 7,871 1%
  4. Uncommitted 2,676 1%

Alaska with 60% reporting:

  1. Obama 176 73%
  2. Clinton 66 27%
  3. Uncommitted 1 0%
  4. Edwards 0 0%

Arizona with 68% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 159,707 51%
  2. Obama 130,396 41%
  3. Edwards 19,446 6%

Arkansas with 83% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 176,745 69%
  2. Obama 70,025 28%
  3. Edwards 4,691 2%
  4. Uncommitted 2,795 1%

California with 21% reporting:

  1. Clinton 691,474 54%
  2. Obama 425,935 33%
  3. Edwards 122,758 10%

Colorado with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 79,167 67%
  2. Clinton 38,506 32%
  3. Uncommitted 1,253 1%

Connecticut with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 177,546 51%
  2. Clinton 163,383 47%
  3. Edwards 3,364 1%
  4. Uncommitted 2,985 1%

Delaware with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 51,124 53%
  2. Clinton 40,751 43%
  3. Biden 2,863 3%
  4. Edwards 1,241 1%

Georgia with 97% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 660,846 66%
  2. Clinton 314,684 32%
  3. Edwards 17,510 2%

Idaho with 89% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 15,357 81%
  2. Clinton 3,146 17%
  3. Uncommitted 395 2%
  4. Edwards 97 0%

Illinois with 94% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 1,196,993 65%
  2. Clinton 618,763 33%
  3. Edwards 36,206 2%

Kansas with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 26,469 74%
  2. Clinton 9,251 26%
  3. Edwards 53 0%
  4. Uncommitted 8 0%

Massachusetts with 95% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 665,564 56%
  2. Obama 483,716 41%
  3. Edwards 18,698 2%
  4. No Preference 7,279 1%

Minnesota with 78% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 129,093 67%
  2. Clinton 61,417 32%
  3. Uncommitted 1,179 1%
  4. Edwards 910 0%

Missouri with 99% reporting (the networks haven’t called it yet, but I’m going to call it for Obama):

  1. Obama 402,576 49%
  2. Clinton 394,491 48%
  3. Edwards 16,726 2%
  4. Uncommitted 3,130 1%

New Jersey with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 591,666 54%
  2. Obama 484,891 44%
  3. Edwards 14,200 1%

New Mexico with 30% reporting:

  1. Clinton 15,205 52%
  2. Obama 12,342 42%
  3. Edwards 1,053 4%
  4. Richardson 410 1%
  5. Uncommitted 178 1%

New York with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 1,000,915 57%
  2. Obama 696,342 40%
  3. Edwards 19,334 1%

North Dakota with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Obama 11,625 61%
  2. Clinton 6,948 37%
  3. Edwards 283 2%

Oklahoma with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 228,597 55%
  2. Obama 130,206 31%
  3. Edwards 42,853 10%

Tennessee with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Clinton 331,781 54%
  2. Obama 250,332 41%
  3. Edwards 27,558 4%
  4. Uncommitted 3,111 1%

Utah results with 99% reporting (last update for today):

  1. Obama 69,638 57%
  2. Clinton 48,413 39%
  3. Edwards 3,496 3%

And here’s a map of the current percentages (this is not necessarily a final map):

STD - Perc - 100STD - Key - Perce

And here’s my accuracy map:

STD - Accur - 100STD - Accur - 100STD Key - Accur

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Republican Super Tuesday Results as of 11:45 P.M.

February 6, 2008

As of 11:45 P.M. EST (I just got home, sorry for the delay).  Bold states are not yet called.

Alabama results with 96% reporting (my final update for the night):

  1. Huckabee 216,206 41%
  2. McCain 199,404 38%
  3. Romney 96,361 18%
  4. Paul 14,530 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,098 0%
  6. Uncommitted 1,220 0%

Arizona with 58% reporting:

  1. McCain 178,090 48%
  2. Romney 124,627 34%
  3. Huckabee 33,031 9%
  4. Paul 15,811 4%
  5. Giuliani 11,822 3%

Arkansas with 66% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Huckabee 78,138 62%
  2. McCain 25,109 20%
  3. Romney 16,015 13%
  4. Paul 5,962 5%
  5. Uncommitted 535 0%
  6. Giuliani 381 0%

California with 12% reporting:

  1. McCain 374,736 44%
  2. Romney 215,931 25%
  3. Huckabee 98,640 12%
  4. Giuliani 85,757 10%
  5. Paul 32,024 4%

Colorado with 21% reporting:

  1. Romney 7,244 54%
  2. McCain 2,924 22%
  3. Huckabee 2,165 16%
  4. Paul 1,033 8%

Connecticut with 92% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. McCain 74,639 52%
  2. Romney 46,666 33%
  3. Huckabee 9,959 7%
  4. Paul 5,891 4%
  5. Uncommitted 2,283 2%
  6. Giuliani 2,257 2%

Delaware with 100% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. McCain 22,626 45%
  2. Romney 16,344 33%
  3. Huckabee 7,706 15%
  4. Paul 2,131 4%
  5. Giuliani 1,255 3%

Georgia with 91% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. Huckabee 313,084 34%
  2. McCain 298,253 32%
  3. Romney 274,014 30%
  4. Paul 26,239 3%
  5. Giuliani 6,600 1%

Illinois with 78% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 311,406 48%
  2. Romney 184,760 28%
  3. Huckabee 107,668 17%
  4. Paul 33,174 5%
  5. Giuliani 8,584 1%

Massachusetts with 92% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 227,136 51%
  2. McCain 183,496 41%
  3. Huckabee 18,515 4%
  4. Paul 12,150 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,402 1%
  6. No Preference 1,739 0%

Minnesota with 57% reporting:

  1. Romney 17,492 42%
  2. McCain 9,192 22%
  3. Huckabee 8,415 20%
  4. Paul 6,403 15%
  5. Giuliani 0 0%

Missouri with 93% reporting:

  1. McCain 180,239 33%
  2. Huckabee 176,889 32%
  3. Romney 158,899 29%
  4. Paul 24,592 4%
  5. Giuliani 3,408 1%
  6. Uncommitted 1,969 0%

Montana with 100% reporting (my last update of the night):

  1. Romney 625 38%
  2. Paul 400 25%
  3. McCain 358 22%
  4. Huckabee 245 15%

New Jersey with 98% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 305,933 55%
  2. Romney 156,871 28%
  3. Huckabee 44,938 8%
  4. Paul 26,537 5%
  5. Giuliani 13,930 3%

New York with 99% reporting (my last update for the night):

  1. McCain 309,376 51%
  2. Romney 168,168 28%
  3. Huckabee 65,344 11%
  4. Paul 38,762 7%
  5. Giuliani 18,105 3%

North Dakota with 100% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 3,490 36%
  2. McCain 2,224 23%
  3. Paul 2,082 21%
  4. Huckabee 1,947 20%

Oklahoma with 99% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 122,702 37%
  2. Huckabee 111,588 33%
  3. Romney 82,839 25%
  4. Paul 11,131 3%
  5. Giuliani 2,417 1%

Tennessee with 91% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Huckabee 175,067 34%
  2. McCain 163,911 32%
  3. Romney 125,124 24%
  4. Paul 29,369 6%
  5. Thompson 15,730 3%
  6. Giuliani 4,955 1% 
  7. Uncommitted 1,762 0%

Utah with 37% reporting:

  1. Romney 92,242 88%
  2. McCain 6,692 6%
  3. Paul 3,107 3%
  4. Huckabee 1,891 2%
  5. Giuliani 541 1%

And here’s a map of the current percentages (note that this does not indicate that a winner has been called):

STR - Perc - 1145STR - Perc Key

And here’s the map of my accuracy:

STR - Accur - 1145STR - Key - Accur

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

Final Republican Prediction for Super Tuesday

February 5, 2008

I had to do a lot less calculating for this one, but I was able to clear all of the states out of the tossup category.

Here’s my prediction based on percentages:

Final Republican ST PercentRepublican Key - Percent

Here’s what I looked at:

  • Alabama: McCain 40%, Huckabee 35%, Romney 20%
  • California: Romney 43%, McCain 38%
  • Georgia: McCain 35%, Romney 33%, Huckabee 27% (I switched this from Romney over to McCain, since Romney hasn’t performed as well in the latest polls)
  • Tennessee: McCain 37%, Huckabee 33%, Romney 25% (I switched this from Huckabee to McCain)

And this is how confident I am in my predictions:

Final Republican ST - ConfRepublican Key - Conf

If you need help understanding any of this post, see here:  https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/republican-predictions-for-super-tuesday/

I’ll update stuff as soon as possible, hopefully West Virginia sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::


%d bloggers like this: