Posts Tagged ‘Colorado’

Analysis of the House Voting Down Yesterday’s Bailout Bill

September 30, 2008

I had hoped to do a post on this yesterday, but I wanted to actually see the bill before I did anything on it.  It took them a while to get the bill language up, and I found out that it was about 110 pages long (it is available here if you’re interested).  Also, here’s the bill that the Senate didn’t vote to pass (it needed 60% to pass).

As I’m sure all of you know, the House voted down yesterday’s bill, H.R. 3997, the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” 205 (140D/65R) – 228 (95D/133R), with 1 not voting (R).

The following is the summary of the act, courtesy of the Financial Services Committee of the House:


I. Stabilizing the Economy

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.

Alright, this basically explains the principle that the Representatives who were for the bill were advocating: This is an investment, not a bailout (similar to the Chrysler government loan guarantees of the 1970s and 1980s, where we co-signed on a $1.5 billion loan).  They argue that we will make our money back, and even possibly make a profit (like we did with Chrysler).  Here’s the problem with that thinking: many American people who are in crisis right now are NOT helping the situation.  I gave an example of a woman who simply left her old home and mortgage in the middle of the night and bought a house in the Carolinas (I don’t remember which off the top of my head) the next day, before the credit caught up to her.  There have been stories of people tearing apart houses right before the bank repossesses them, “because the bank is the bad guy” when in actuality, it’s both the bank’s fault for giving a loan to somebody who never should have been able to get one as well as the homeowner’s fault for trying to buy a house that he/she simply couldn’t afford.  It’s a lack of basic family budgeting and spending principles that helped get us into this situation.  Then mortgage companies gave out Adjustable Rate Mortgages to people who NEVER should’ve been able to get one, and people looking to buy homes ignored the first basic principle of fiscal responsibility: don’t buy something you can’t afford!  So, we’re going to buy these mortgages, but that’s not going to stop people from not being able to pay the mortgages.  Instead of banks losing money, it’ll be the government.

Now, on the other hand, it IS unfair for responsible buyers who happened to get a mortgage from the wrong company to have to suffer, and it is THESE instances that I am more willing to accept government intervention, but how the government is to analyze and weed out the good from the bad is quite a problem, considering the massiveness of banks and mortgage companies that have failed or are looking like they will fail.

II. Homeownership Preservation

EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans – many the result of predatory lending practices – wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.

Now, that last sentence is where the government could lose a lot of money.  When you expand eligibility and increase tools for helping people stay in their homes, you’re saying that these people are getting help to stay in homes that they can’t afford, which means that the government is footing the bill, and that’s money that the government will not see back in its hands a good chunk of the time.

III. Taxpayer Protection

Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program from financial institutions.

This is again, where the “investment” principle comes into the bill.  And this could be good for the government, like the bailout of Chrysler was profitable to the government in the 1980s and 1990s.  The part that confuses me is that last sentence – why the President is the one to draft legislation to cover taxpayer losses seems to confuse me, unless that’s their way of knowing that the President will approve of the measure, since he himself drafted it.  I’ll have to look into that a little more to understand what all that would do.

IV. No Windfalls for Executives

Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits “golden parachutes” and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.

If these executives cared about their companies, most of them just would stop taking pay.  I guarantee you that if I were the CEO of AIG, and if I were set for life, I wouldn’t take another pay check until the company was back on track.

V. Strong Oversight

Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse [sic]

Good.  Frankly, I don’t trust the Treasury Department after they advocated the Fannie and Freddie bailouts.  I want to know where this money is going, and I want Congressional approval of it (even though I don’t support the Democrats in Congress, the more people that have to approve where the money goes, the better).

So, that’s the summary, and here’s the section-by-section analysis of the bill, basically the summary with details, also courtesy of the Financial Services Committee:


Section 1. Short Title.

“Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

Section 2. Purposes.

Provides authority to the Treasury Secretary to restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial system and to ensure the economic well-being of Americans.

Section 3. Definitions.

Contains various definitions used under this Act.

Title I. Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Section 101. Purchases of Troubled Assets.

Authorizes the Secretary to establish a Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. Establishes an Office of Financial Stability within the Treasury Department to implement the TARP in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Requires the Treasury Secretary to establish guidelines and policies to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Includes provisions to prevent unjust enrichment by participants of the program.

Like I said above.  The government has to be careful that this really is an investment, because if more companies say, “We can take risks, because we’re too big, so the government will HAVE to bail us out,” then it becomes purely a bailout and a terrible investment that will cost taxpayers billions (if not ultimately trillions, since this bill alone would authorize up to $700 billion).  Personally, I really don’t think the government should be doing this at all, but since some bailout bill will eventually pass, I’d want it filled with as many fiscal conservative principles as possible.

Section 102. Insurance of Troubled Assets.

If the Secretary establishes the TARP program, the Secretary is required to establish a program to guarantee troubled assets of financial institutions.

The Secretary is required to establish risk-based premiums for such guarantees sufficient to cover anticipated claims. The Secretary must report to Congress on the establishment of the guarantee program.

Again – I like the whole reporting to Congress idea.

Section 103. Considerations.

In using authority under this Act, the Treasury Secretary is required to take a number of considerations into account, including the interests of taxpayers, minimizing the impact on the national debt, providing stability to the financial markets, preserving homeownership, the needs of all financial institutions regardless of size or other characteristics, and the needs of local communities. Requires the Secretary to examine the long-term viability of an institution in determining whether to directly purchase assets under the TARP.

Section 104. Financial Stability Oversight Board.

This section establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Board to review and make recommendations regarding the exercise of authority under this Act. In addition, the Board must ensure that the policies implemented by the Secretary protect taxpayers, are in the economic interests of the United States, and are in accordance with this Act.

The Board is comprised of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Section 105. Reports.

Monthly Reports: Within 60 days of the first exercise of authority under this Act and every month thereafter, the Secretary is required to report to Congress its activities under TARP, including detailed financial statements.

Tranche Reports: For every $50 billion in assets purchased, the Secretary is required to report to Congress a detailed description of all transactions, a description of the pricing mechanisms used, and justifications for the financial terms of such transactions.

Regulatory Modernization Report: Prior to April 30, 2009, the Secretary is required to submit a report to Congress on the current state of the financial markets, the effectiveness of the financial regulatory system, and to provide any recommendations.

Section 106. Rights; Management; Sale of Troubled Assets; Revenues and Sale Proceeds.

Establishes the right of the Secretary to exercise authorities under this Act at any time. Provides the Secretary with the authority to manage troubled assets, including the ability to determine the terms and conditions associated with the disposition of troubled assets. Requires profits from the sale of troubled assets to be used to pay down the national debt.

Section 107. Contracting Procedures.

Allows the Secretary to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest. Such waivers must be reported to Congress within 7 days. If provisions related to minority contracting are waived, the Secretary must develop alternate procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.

Allows the FDIC to be selected as an asset manager for residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities.

Section 108. Conflicts of Interest.

The Secretary is required to issue regulations or guidelines to manage or prohibit conflicts of interest in the administration of the program.

Section 109. Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.

For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs. Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

This is the section that is most helpful directly to taxpayers, but will also award people for bad fiscal principles.  If you can’t afford a loan that you took out, it’s not the government’s job to use loan guarantees (essentially co-sign on the loan).  If you lose your house, that’s your own fault.  It’s harsh, but it’s fair.

Section 110. Assistance to Homeowners.

Requires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

Again, the government will lose a lot of money here, and so will banks.  If they’re letting people stay in houses when they can’t afford them, somebody is going to lose money, and it will be both banks and other lending agencies as well as the government.

Section 111. Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance.

Provides that Treasury will promulgate executive compensation rules governing financial institutions that sell it troubled assets. Where Treasury buys assets directly, the institution must observe standards limiting incentives, allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000.

Section 112. Coordination With Foreign Authorities and Central Banks.

Requires the Secretary to coordinate with foreign authorities and central banks to establish programs similar to TARP.

Section 113. Minimization of Long-Term Costs and Maximization of Benefits for Taxpayers.

In order to cover losses and administrative costs, as well as to allow taxpayers to share in equity appreciation, requires that the Treasury receive non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions.

Section 114. Market Transparency.

48-hour Reporting Requirement: The Secretary is required, within 2 business days of exercising authority under this Act, to publicly disclose the details of any transaction.

Good, if we’re going to screw our economy up more, I at least want to understand exactly how it happened.

Section 115. Graduated Authorization to Purchase.

Authorizes the full $700 billion as requested by the Treasury Secretary for implementation of TARP. Allows the Secretary to immediately use up to $250 billion in authority under this Act. Upon a Presidential certification of need, the Secretary may access an additional $100 billion. The final $350 billion may be accessed if the President transmits a written report to Congress requesting such authority. The Secretary may use this additional authority unless within 15 days Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval which may be considered on an expedited basis.

Again, good – it at least gives us the hope that we won’t use all $700 billion, at least on this bailout.

Section 116. Oversight and Audits.

Requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of TARP, and to report every 60 days to Congress. The Comptroller General is required to conduct an annual audit of TARP. In addition, TARP is required to establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls.

Section 117. Study and Report on Margin Authority.

Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study and report back to Congress on the role in which leverage and sudden deleveraging of financial institutions was a factor behind the current financial crisis.

Section 118. Funding.

Provides for the authorization and appropriation of funds consistent with Section 115.

Section 119. Judicial Review and Related Matters.

Provides standards for judicial review, including injunctive and other relief, to ensure that the actions of the Secretary are not arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.

Section 120. Termination of Authority.

Provides that the authorities to purchase and guarantee assets terminate on December 31, 2009. The Secretary may extend the authority for an additional year upon certification of need to Congress.

Section 121. Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Establishes the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the actions undertaken by the Secretary under this Act. The Special Inspector General is required to submit a quarterly report to Congress summarizing its activities and the activities of the Secretary under this Act.

Section 122. Increase in the Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Raises the debt ceiling from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.

Section 123. Credit Reform.

Details the manner in which the legislation will be treated for budgetary purposes under the Federal Credit Reform Act.

Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.

Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures.

I’ve already voiced my opinions on this – this is gonna hurt us.

Section 125. Congressional Oversight Panel.

Establishes a Congressional Oversight Panel to review the state of the financial markets, the regulatory system, and the use of authority under TARP. The panel is required to report to Congress every 30 days and to submit a special report on regulatory reform

prior to January 20, 2009. The panel will consist of 5 outside experts appointed by the House and Senate Minority and Majority leadership.

Section 126. FDIC Enforcement Enhancement.

Prohibits the misuse of the FDIC logo and name to falsely represent that deposits are insured. Strengthens enforcement by appropriate federal banking agencies, and allows the FDIC to take enforcement action against any person or institution where the banking agency has not acted.

This wasn’t prohibited before?  I feel like that should’ve been outlawed back when the FDIC was FORMED!

Section 127. Cooperation With the FBI.

Requires any federal financial regulatory agency to cooperate with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies investigating fraud, misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, advertising, and sale of financial products.

Again, this needed to be in a bill?

Section 128. Acceleration of Effective Date.

Provides the Federal Reserve with the ability to pay interest on reserves.

Section 129. Disclosures on Exercise of Loan Authority.

Requires the Federal Reserve to provide a detailed report to Congress, in an expedited manner, upon the use of its emergency lending authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.

Again, if we’re going to kill our economy, at least we know how we did it so we don’t do it again.

Section 130. Technical Corrections.

Makes technical corrections to the Truth in Lending Act.

Section 131. Exchange Stabilization Fund Reimbursement.

Protects the Exchange Stabilization Fund from incurring any losses due to the temporary money market mutual fund guarantee by requiring the program created in this Act to reimburse the Fund. Prohibits any future use of the Fund for any guarantee program for the money market mutual fund industry.

Section 132. Authority to Suspend Mark-to-Market Accounting.

Restates the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to suspend the application of Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board if the SEC determines that it is in the public interest and protects investors.

Section 133. Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting.

Requires the SEC, in consultation with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, to conduct a study on mark-to-market accounting standards as provided in FAS 157, including its effects on balance sheets, impact on the quality of financial information, and other matters, and to report to Congress within 90 days on its findings.

Section 134. Recoupment.

Requires that in 5 years, the President submit to the Congress a proposal that recoups from the financial industry any projected losses to the taxpayer.

Again, why is the President writing this proposal?  And how do they honestly plan on recouping losses?  How do you get back billions of dollars from the financial industry?  I feel sorry for whoever has to write that proposal.

Section 135. Preservation of Authority.

Clarifies that nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of the Secretary or the Federal Reserve under any other provision of law.

Title II-Budget-Related Provisions

Section 201. Information for Congressional Support Agencies.

Requires that information used by the Treasury Secretary in connection with activities under this Act be made available to CBO and JCT.

Section 202. Reports by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Requires CBO and OMB to report cost estimates and related information to Congress and the President regarding the authorities that the Secretary of the Treasury has exercised under the Act.

Section 203. Analysis in President’s Budget.

Requires that the President include in his annual budget submission to the Congress certain analyses and estimates relating to costs incurred as a result of the Act; and

Section 204. Emergency Treatment.

Specifies scoring of the Act for purposes of budget enforcement.

Title III-Tax Provisions

Section 301. Gain or Loss From Sale or Exchange of Certain Preferred Stock.

Details certain changes in the tax treatment of losses on the preferred stock of certain GSEs for financial institutions.

Section 302. Special Rules for Tax Treatment of Executive Compensation of Employers Participating in the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Applies limits on executive compensation and golden parachutes for certain executives of employers who participate in the auction program.

That I agree with.  If we’re bailing out these companies, lets at least waste the money solely on the companies.

Section 303. Extension of Exclusion of Income From Discharge of Qualified Principal Residence Indebtedness.

Extends current law tax forgiveness on the cancellation of mortgage debt.

Alright, so that was the full summary of the bill that FAILED the House yesterday.

I want give you a quote from Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), given during yesterday’s House session:

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is only going to make the problem that much worse. The problem came about because we spent too much; we borrowed too much, and we printed too much money; we inflated too much, and we overregulated. This is all that this bill is about is more of the same.

So you can’t solve the problem. We are looking at a symptom. We are looking at the collapsing of a market that was unstable. It was unstable because of the way it came about. It came about because of a monopoly control of money and credit by the Federal Reserve System, and that is a natural consequence of what happens when a Federal Reserve System creates too much credit.

Now, there have been a fair number of free market economists around who have predicted this would happen. Yet do we look to them for advice? No. We totally exclude them. We don’t listen to them. We don’t look at them. We look to the people who created the problem, and then we perpetuate the problem.

The most serious mistake that could be made here today is to blame free market capitalism for this problem. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism. This has to do with a managed economy, with an inflationary system, with corporatism, and with a special interest system. It has nothing to do with the failure of free markets and capitalism. Yet we’re resorting now, once again, to promoting more and more government.

Long term, this is disastrous because of everything we’re doing here and because of everything we’ve done for 6 months. We’ve already pumped in $700 billion. Here is another $700 billion. This is going to destroy the dollar. That’s what you should be concerned about. Yes, Wall Street is in trouble. There are a lot of problems, and if we don’t vote for this, there are going to be problems. Believe me: If you destroy the dollar, you’re going to destroy a worldwide economy, and that’s what we’re
on the verge of doing, and it is inevitable, if we continue this, that that’s what’s going to happen. It’s [Page: H10370]
going to be a lot more serious than what we’re dealing with today.

We need to get our house in order. We need more oversight–that is a certainty–but we need oversight of the Federal Reserve System, of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. Find out what they’re doing. How much have they been meddling in the market?

What we’re doing today is going to make things much worse.

Pure economic genius from Dr. Paul.

And here’s a quote from Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO):

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the strong opposition to the initial administration proposal has helped to force some very important changes such as the bipartisan oversight board, which is an online database that will allow greater oversight of the Secretary’s actions, but this is still a bailout for Wall Street that will cost the average Colorado household thousands.

I simply cannot stomach transferring that kind of money from the middle class families to a bunch of Wall Street bankers whose avarice and greed put us in this situation in the first place. It’s interesting that, when working families were being crushed by soaring energy prices this summer, Congress went on vacation. Yet, when Wall Street faced the consequences of its actions, we worked around the clock to help them. We should place the same priority on helping Main Street that we place on helping
Wall Street.

And there she expresses what most Americans are expressing: “Why use my money to bail out people and companies who acted irresponsibly?”

A full record of everything said at yesterday’s House session is available on C-Span’s website here (it’s actually pretty cool – I never knew they had that!).

So, again, I am glad that the House voted down this bill.  Hopefully I’ll be able to see the next bill BEFORE there’s a vote on it – I was very disappointed that there was no record of this until today, and even then, so many people were trying to access it that they were killing and the House websites.

On a side note, here’s a copy of the roll call vote, and I’d like to note that I’m terribly disappointed in Representative Tancredo (R-CO) for voting Aye on this.

Done Ranting,

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

Obama’s “I’ve Got a Bracelet Too” Comment Was Disrespectful to Troops

September 29, 2008

Alright, this is (presumably) my last post about Friday’s debate.  The following is an exchange between Senator McCain and Senator Obama, regarding Afghanistan:

When I originally watched that, what struck me the most was Obama saying (1:17), “Uh, Jim, th-l-let me just make a point: I’ve got a bracelet too.  From Sergeant–uh–uh–from the mother of–uh–Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay.”

Now, first, I know that me putting the stuttering in there looks kinda bad, but I have a point to that.  The part that struck me most offensive was the “Let me just make a point: I’ve got a bracelet too.”  It came across as Obama saying something like, “Oh yeah, well I’ve got…”  And my (liberal) roommate agreed with me – he found that part as a bad statement from Obama (and again, thanks to my roommate for all he’s helped me with on the blog – especially during the debate, when I couldn’t keep up with typing as fast as they were talking).

The media had raised the fact that Obama stuttered over Sergeant Jopek’s name, and at first, based on initial videos that I watched I was going to dismiss it to the fact that Obama is really not that great of a speaker, especially in debates (as evidenced by the stuttering and the “um”s, which is why I included it.  It’s not an insult to him, it’s just the truth.  I love Representative Tom Tancredo [R-CO], but I’ll be the first to admit–and I have–that when it comes to speaking, he’s just atrocious).

Then I watched the video again today.  Notice as he’s trying to get the name out, that he looks down.  My thought was that the name is on the bracelet and he’s trying to read the name.  I don’t know if my theory is right or not, but if it is correct, it gives more credit to the people who were claiming that Obama forgot the name of the soldier.

Again, even if he did “forget” the name, I think this could be credited to the fact that he was probably nervous, and that’s what I credit a lot of his stuttering to (it seemed higher than normal).  The biggest problem that I had with that statement was his whole attitude.  The irreverent attitude of “I’ve got a bracelet too.”  It came across that he was just using the sacrifice that Sergeant Jopek gave for political gain.

We have to be very careful when we use military heroes as examples.  When our soldiers become methods to get points across instead of the REASON that we are making the point, we have trivialized their sacrifices and have dishonored them.  This is unacceptable, no matter who does it or what party they are from.

Done Ranting,

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

Bill Clinton Contemplating Voting for Obama? He Says He’s Not

August 27, 2008

News broke yesterday that Bill Clinton spoke at the International Leaders Forum at the Stage Theater in Denver and said the following:  “Suppose for example you’re a voter.  And you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y.  Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything.  Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver.  For whom would you vote? — This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”

Here’s a video of the speech (a huge thanks to my friend Mike for finding this for me):

Wow.  Because, Mr. President, that seemed to be everything of whta’s going on now (although you don’t agree with Obama on everything.”

Think of it this way:  The following is a liberal-conservative chart of the candidates:

DP  O   C    L                |               M      H  (M)B  RP

DP=Democratic Platform; O=Obama; C= Clinton; L=Lieberman; M=McCain; H=Hagel; (M)=Where the Democrats say McCain is; B=Bush; RP=Republican Platform; |=halfway between a Republican and a Democrat.

So, if Clinton WAS talking about McCain, it was an exaggeration that he agrees with McCain on half the issues.

Do I think he was talking about Obama and McCain.  I do, and so have a lot of liberals I’ve talked to (although, a lot of them are pro-Obama and anti-Clinton).

Clinton did say at another point in his speech: “For those of us interested in politics, it was an endlessly fascinating process already, and it’s still got some twists and turns between now and November. … [The purpose of the convention is] introduce the candidate in a new and different and hopefully more positive way… [to] unify the party and [aid in] defining the battle [between Democrats and Republicans].”

Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala told The Hill (who broke the story), “He’s totally for Barack.  He’s totally for Barack.”

He may say he’s for Barack, but will he actually vote for him come November?  That I can’t answer.

If anybody can find the video of his speech, pass on the link to me (I can’t find it ANYWHERE).  Thanks!  (Again, thanks for finding the link for me Mike!)

Done Wondering,

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

Religious Right Movement Leaders Leaning Toward Supporting McCain

July 3, 2008

So, I just saw an Associated Press article that really encouraged me.  I have always considered myself to be a member of the “Religious Right” or the “Conservative Evangelicals” or whatever you want to label that group of people like James Dobson (president of Focus on the Family).

But then came Mitt Romney, and a lot of Christians said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, and I said that if Romney lost because the RR wouldn’t vote for him, I would disassociated myself from them.  Well, Romney lost because the media fell in love with John Sydney McCain III.  But, the RR didn’t exactly put up a fight for McCain’s love, in fact, RR leaders such as Dobson have said that they may not vote for McCain.  I did a post a couple months ago about why pro-lifers should vote for McCain, so I won’t go into details about why I think conservative evangelicals should vote for him.  If you want to read more, see the link above.

I’ll highlight some points from the AP article:

90 RR leaders (Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum; Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind series; Beverly LaHaye [Tim’s wife], founder of Concerned Women for America; David Barton, founder of WallBuilders; Rick Scarborough, from Vision America; and Don Hodel, a former interior secretary and the former president of Focus on the Family; Dr. Dobson was not there – he was at a book signing in California) met in Denver, Colorado on Tuesday night, at a meeting hosted by Mathew Staver, head of Florida’s Liberty Counsel legal advocacy group.

Staver told reporters, “Our shared core values compel us to unite and choose the presidential candidate that best advances those values.  That obvious choice is Sen. John McCain.  I think people left the meeting in unity the likes of which have not been evident through the primaries.  Obama is a considerable threat to our values.  At the same time, Senator McCain recently has been reaching out to evangelicals and conservative voters that we represent.”

The leaders signed a letter to McCain that asked McCain to pick Mike Huckabee as his VP candidate.  Staver, one  of the signers, had endorsed Huckabee earlier in the year.

Phil Burress, the  leader of an Ohio group that was involved in an anti-gay marriage ban in 2004 described the letter as more of a “suggestion, not a demand.  This is a man you don’t threaten.  His principles are his principles.  The last thing you want to do is try to force him to do something he doesn’t want to do because he’d probably do the opposite.”  I think that Burress is overreacting, but McCain does have somewhat of a firey personality, and a list of demands probably wouldn’t come across too well.

Burress went on to say that choosing Huckabee is not the main goal, but that McCain should choose a “pro-life and pro-family” candidate, whether that is Huckabee or not.  He then went on to say that some RR leaders don’t like Huckabee, because of his populist stances (social conservativism mixed with economic liberalism).  And that’s one reason that I disliked Huckabee.  Christians often use a populist message claiming that “Jesus wanted us to help the poor, so let’s have the government help the poor with welfare.”  Well, Jesus wanted US to help the poor, but the “us” wasn’t the government, but the church.  The reason that Christians turn to the government to help the poor is because the church has failed in its duty to the poor and elderly.  If the church did it’s job, we wouldn’t need Medicare and Medicaid.  And who do I mean when  I say “the church”?  I mean every Christian, including myself.  We should at least be giving a tenth of our income, and that would provide a huge resource to churches all over.  A lot of people give to the church, but it’s often just a bare minimum.  OK, back on topic…

Burress told reporters, “People are not saying, ‘Let’s all go out and support John McCain.’  It’s more like, ‘We have to do what we have to do for our country.’  Basically, that boiled down to John McCain.  The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven’t read their Bible.  The more and more we learn about Obama, the closer and closer we get to McCain.  We have agreed that we’ll be working hard the next few months.”

“The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven’t read their Bible” – THAT’S AN AWESOME QUOTE!  I’ve never heard of that guy, but I like him!  I will say that that  shouldn’t be taken to mean that anybody who votes for Obama isn’t a Christian, but anybody who can support somebody who CLEARLY violates basic Biblical principles (anybody who isn’t pro-life) has some issues with their Christianity (not that mine, or anybody’s spiritual life is anywhere NEAR perfect).

I would like to see McCain stop supporting embryonic stem cell research, but I’d be willing to take the lesser of 2 evils on this one, and I’d like to see Dr. Dobson support McCain.

I’m glad to see the Religious Right coming around and trying to do the right thing here.

Done Ranting,

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

McCain Hints at a Romney Vice Presidency While the Two Campaign

March 29, 2008

So, while campaigning in Colorado yesterday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) gave an awfully nice complement to former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), saying, “I am convinced that Governor Romney has earned himself because of the quality of his campaign and the success of it a very large roll in the Republican party.”  Romney wouldn’t respond to reporters’ questions on the matter.  Here’s a video of the the event:

I have always said that I think Romney WILL be McCain’s running mate, but we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Done Reporting,

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

Republican Super Tuesday Results as of 2:00 A.M.

February 6, 2008

Here are the results for the states that I planned on updating as of  2:00 A.M.:

Alaska with 28% reporting (although media outlets haven’t called it, I’m calling it for Romney):

  1. Romney 1,200 41%
  2. Huckabee 634 22%
  3. McCain 539 19%
  4. Paul 466 16%
  5. Uncommitted 72 2%

Arizona with 80% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. McCain 203,409 47%
  2. Romney 146,840 34%
  3. Huckabee 39,035 9%
  4. Paul 18,432 5%
  5. Giuliani 12,069 3%

California with 34% reporting:

  1. McCain 526,337 44%
  2. Romney 329,689 27%
  3. Huckabee 141,881 12%
  4. Giuliani 103,977 9%
  5. Paul 47,398 4%

Colorado with 73% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 33,288 60%
  2. McCain 10,621 19%
  3. Huckabee 7,266 13%
  4. Paul 4,670 8%

Minnesota with 82% reporting (my last update for tonight):

  1. Romney 25,171 42%
  2. McCain 13,180 22%
  3. Huckabee 12,115 20%
  4. Paul 9,412 15%
  5. Giuliani 0 0%

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

  1. McCain 194,304 33%
  2. Huckabee 185,627 32%
  3. Romney 172,564 29%
  4. Paul 26,445 4%
  5. Giuliani 3,595 1%
  6. Uncommitted 2,083 0%

Utah with 99% reporting (last update for tonight – and he got 90%!  I knew he’d get 90% – how many people thought he’d get that high – that was awesome):

  1. Romney 252,861 90%
  2. McCain 15,198 5%
  3. Paul 8,206 3%
  4. Huckabee 4,038 2%
  5. Giuliani 921 0%

And here’s an updated percentage map:

STR - Perc - 200STR - Key - Perc

And my accuracy map:

STR - Accur - 200STR - Key - Accur

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: 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 :: 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 :: 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:

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

Done Predicting,

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

%d bloggers like this: