Don’t know where you got your numbers from, but McManiac has 687 to Romney’s 244 to Huckabee’s 187.
A few more? LOL
Huck’s positioning himself, that’s all.
Besides, it doesn’t matter. None of the “leftovers” can be the DUmmies.
Fox website this afternoon - they said MH 190 at the time, but my point was just that between him and Mitt, I’ve heard a lot of estimates that Mitt had spent about 10 times as much money, and sure didn’t have 10 times as many delegates.
(not even twice as many, not even close)
So at Romney’s 244 to Huckabee’s 187 = 57 more delegates, right?
It’s past my bedtime, and my brain is doing funny things, but I tried to figure out the percentage of the spread, and it looks to me like 23% inclusive, and 30% exclusive, which are the same figures generally used for the Fair Tax, which is one of the reasons I support Huckabee (accountant’s for Fair Tax!!)
That would be a really fascinating coincidence, if my mind isn’t playing tricks on me.
1% higher makes both numbers a little too high.
But my original point was that southern conservatives don’t want to buy what Mitt is trying to sell.
People said Huckabee couldn’t even get 10%, couldn’t possibly win Iowa, couldn’t possibly do it again, couldn’t win any states yesterday. He won five yesterday, and was ahead in Missouri for hours, until McCain finally caught up, then crept past him by one point.
So now when they say he couldn’t possibly win the nomination, I’m not buying that either.
It’s just a daydream of mine, but if Hunter would be the VP, would you believe his intentions are to do the right thing on the border?