John McCain Wins NH Republican Primary

[TAdams8591]

Excellent points. Great post! : )

[N3WBI3]

Oh yea he ruled in Wyoming, the most uncontested primary in history..

Fact is he cant win a contested primary while massively outspending his opponents, when he gets to the general and cant out spend the democrat....

I hope Mitt and Trudy drop because then I can vote for pretty much anyone left over..

[NeoCaveman]

Are those Fox News numbers?

I think they are off.

[LS]

It’s the anti-war right. The “force is strong with them.” These are the Brigadiers who still lament that Patsy Buchanan isn’t around to demagogue Israel.

[bmwcyle]

AMEN

[Leisler]

MITTBOTTS

[vox_freedom]

ditto’s

[Neu Pragmatist]

Barnes has always been a McPain worshipper , it’s sickening ...

[Ol' Sparky]

If Romney loses Michigan and drops out, who gets his voters?

I bet Huckabee eventually gets quite a few from the social conservatives supporting Romney.

There is still a small hope that Fred Thompson could pick up some of the sort and become viable again.

[Colofornian]

Three states have voted and if you total the votes Romney has the most. If you total the delegates, Romney has the most. Why would the man who won a state, has the most delegates and the most votes quit the race?

Well, I'm glad you cited "math issues" Elizabetty but that's not the only math involved. While it's true that Romney has deep personal pockets & therefore can stay in as long as he likes, there's 2 diminishing aspects to a losing campaign:

(1) The income ratio changes. If Romney was spending, say a $1 of his personal fortune for every $4 coming in elsewhere...that could change to him having to spend $3 for every $2 coming in elsewhere...especially with big media drain states like CA & NY coming up. At some point, Romney has to ask how much of his fortune is he willing to stake on this attempt to personally purchase the presidency.

(2) The business analysis side of Romney the investor has to kick in to a greater degree. Investors know there's a thing called a "return on investment." If you are pouring mucho more than all your competitors put together in an investment, & each wave you're not getting the best "return on investment," the "cost per vote" calculation eventually becomes obvious...it becomes "too expensive" to garner the number of voters you need to win the whole thing.

If your campaign is doing well, then you don't have problem #1. If your campaign isn't doing well, then problem #1 kicks in and exacerbates problem #2. Voter cost "inflation" makes winning the whole thing a HUGE gamble of a good chunk of your own personal fortune.

[Dagnabitt]

A couple of "mavericks" laughing about betraying fellow citizens (almost as fun as cheating on their wives).

[JewishRighter]

There really is something disquieting about McShamnesty. When he’s talking in front of the cameras in front of a small group with his wife there, something is just not right. Can someone else explain that better.

I know what you mean and I think it's captured in the nickname "McQueeg". There's just a little bit of a paranoid quality, with just a hint of a snarl in the way he speaks. Sort of a cross between Captain Queeg and Bevis and Butthead. heh heh, heh heh.

[JewishRighter]

Yeah, that picture somehow tells the story

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It’s the anti-war right. The “force is strong with them.” These are the Brigadiers who still lament that Patsy Buchanan isn’t around to demagogue Israel.

Yes I guess so. I don't get them.

[Harrius Magnus]

“Can someone else explain that better.”

Queen of Hearts.

[LS]

That is ludicrous. Why wasn't it "contested?" Because Fred won't campaign in a state he knows he'll lose in---which is fine. That's good strategy. But Mitt and Rudy have a different strat, which is to compete everywhere, because it's a LONG campaign, and winning IA, or NH won't do it. This is going to be a last man standing, and I'd even bet the guy who collects the most #2s will win more total delegates than some of the guys who win #1s. It's that kind of a race.

But as difficult as it is, people here better get used to this reality: the GOP nominee will be one of four guys---McCain, Romney, Huck, or Rudy.

Now, cue all the Freepers who will sing in unison, "Well, I ain't gonna vote then, blah, blah, blah."

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I find it humorous that Freepers ... turn their bile on Mitt or Huck...

Come on. LOL You've been around FR longer than I have. The reason FReepers don't support Mitt or the Huckster, but do support Fred and Hunter should be crystal clear. Neither Romney or the Huckster are conservatives. Fred and Hunter are conservatives.

>>>>>So "all his money" has won Romney a helluva lot ...

It goes beyond money. It goes to trust and conservatism. Two aspects Huckabee and Romney seriously lack.

[LibLieSlayer]

Fox has turned left. It has been doing so more and more. It is no longer centrist.

LLS

[K-oneTexas]

Those may not be losses. He consistently wins the 'Silver'. Getting second in two very different States is saying something ... and I don't mean loser. Both States 'basic philospphies'

I have never liked the news folks calling the winner before all the votes are in or a majority of them (like 80% maybe). To declare McCain the winner with 18% of the votes is premature. The Independent votes aren't even in yet.

I think if I remember the number from Iowa Caucus right and what the news/radio is saying about New Hampshire Primaries ... voters are coming out in record numbers. That in itself says a lot ... now in 2008 will this be maintained in other States? All remaining States? The General Election?

[Colofornian]

re: Hissy-fit...

Be sure to read the readers' comments in the Deseret News tomorrow. The "sour grapes" comments from LDS folks & other Mittbots last Friday were especially fit for your "hissy-fit" graphic; I'm sure they'll be back to entertain tomorrow.