I am not kidding, that is exactly how the national media is portraying the results of Super Tuesday. If you can figure it all out, and do it with a straight face, and mean every word you say, you are a total sociopath and there is a place for you in the world of political intrigue.
The best part of Super Tuesday from this standpoint was that the Fox television channel was running American Idol and House back-to-back just as the polls were closing from the east to west, so I had something else to do instead of watching political commentators trying to appear non-aligned. What a joke.
Here is what is really happening.
ON the Republican side, the national media wants John McCain to win, so anything he does is great. The national media does not want Mitt Romney to win, so anything he does is less than great. The national media believes that a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote away from Romney, so if Huckabee beats Romney, that is great.
This was evidenced by the West Virginia caucuses where Romney was the leader in the first round, but didn't get more than 50 percent, so McCain's people gave their votes to Huckabee so he could beat Romney in the second round. Even though it only meant a handful of convention delegates that was A BIG DEAL on television all afternoon.
McCain pulled in nice numbers in so-called "blue" or liberal states, New York and New Jersey for instance and that was a BIG DEAL, even though he likely won’t win there in November. Romney handily won Massachusetts where he had been governor, as well as Utah, Montana, North Dakota, and Colorado. He had already won Michigan, Maine and Nevada, but apparently none of them were A BIG DEAL, which you could tell because the media didn't report on them or tally up Romney's delegates until it was literally embarrassing to keep ignoring them.
When it was all said and done the real story, and the one true story, is that McCain won California. Romney could have made a huge statement if he had won that state, and even though he got a decent second place there and picked up some delegates, he really needed a win and he didn't get it.
Tuesday's voting, by the way, is yet another example of the total fallibility of the polls that the news media use to direct their coverage so they don't get left out in the cold when they don't back the right candidate.
McCain was supposed to put Romney away for good. He didn't. He doesn't have enough delegates to win the convention on the first round, and it is doubtful he will get them if Romney and Huckabee stay in the race.
Romney was supposed to do so badly that he would fold. That didn't work out right either - for the pollsters and their media minions. Romney has only one less state than McCain, although that translates to far less delegates, and an impressive run of second place finishes.
Huckabee was supposed to fold his tents and slink away, and yet he is very much in the race even though he has a ton of third and fourth place finishes. Huckabee has won only half as many states as McCain and Romney and fewer delegates than either of them, but the media is portraying him as really, really in the mix, so he will keep pushing.
California was supposed to be too close to call, but McCain won handily. Can’t these guys get anything right? Or are these horribly inaccurate polls in advance of the primaries and caucuses just excuses to allow the commentators to make believe they aren’t taking sides, which of course they are.
There still are some major primaries left out in America, including Texas, which has tons of delegates, as well as Louisiana, Virginia, Kansas and Washington State. Lots of time left to make the Republican convention a free-for-all which would be great theater and just might work out well for America.
On the Democratic side, we have another interesting situation. Many Democrats are in love with their two candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a woman and a black man. They love being in love, but aren't paying attention to their stances on the issues that will dominate the race for the presidency once the conventions are over.
Does anyone really think Obama's anti-war stance is going to sit well with the wider world of American voters, especially with what is going on in Berkeley? From Labor Day onward Americans will be reminded on a daily basis that our troops are winning the War on Terror when the Democrats want to cut and run, and that the fringe elements on the Berkeley Council and the Iraq Veterans Against the War are trying to recreate John Kerry's attacks on the American military back in the 60s and 70s.
Barack has a past that will haunt him, and issues that will haunt him. Hillary Clinton is in the same boat. Their supporters are coming out strong and hard for them in the primaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to support in the general election.
Hillary has the most delegates for the Democrats, pretty much the same as McCain for the Republicans. But unlike the party line that the Beltway Curmudgeons are spouting about Romney, having fewer victories and fewer delegates is seen as a good thing for Barack.
I'm not sure how, but then again I haven't been educated in the Manhattan-D.C., school of obfuscation and chicanery. So, despite what everyone is saying, here is where I see the race so far.
Romney isn't ahead and isn't likely to pull ahead, but he has enough delegates to have a big say in shaping the GOP convention. For those of us who like Romney's knowledge of economic factors and his stance on immigration, that is a good thing.
Huckabee probably won't get enough delegates to hold much sway, but if he joins with McCain he can instantly become a power broker. For those of us who like his Fair Tax message, that could be a good thing.
On the Democratic side, Hillary has good chances of going over the top and winning the nomination, but Obama will have enough power to influence the convention. For America, that could be a good thing.
There, that pretty much wraps it all up in understandable terms. Any questions?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008