Redstate

While everyone else was watching the debate Sunday evening, I was watching The Simpsons:

The setup: Springfield wants to pass a bond issue sooner, but that can't happen until the next election, which is the presidential primary. So Springfield votes to move it up-- making it one week earlier than New Hampshire, and the media of course descends on the town.

At one point the Simpsons' house is overrun with media and candidates, so he runs them all out--

Homer: You too, Fred Thompson!

[ Fred Thompson emerges from behind a house plant. ]

Fred Thompson: But I was in Die Hard!

Homer: Hmph. Die Hard 2.

[ Fred, dejected, wanders out. ]

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

1) Is this race becoming more about moving beyond partisanship (which helps Obama/McCain) or moving on to new faces (Obama/Romney)?

For republicans, neither, its the moderate versus the conservative.

2) How will turnout for each party compare to 2000? In IA, Ds are way up, Rs are a little up from 2000. Will NH show a similar enthusiasm gap?

More for democrates, less for Republicans. This will be totally due to independents going to Obama, and will have nothing to do with the general.

3) Can Romney's late bump be enough to put him over the top? Or do this morning's polls show McCain holding on?

Neither, it will be a virtual tie, although 1 will claim a marginal victory

4) Does it matter to analysts, pundits, and MI voters that Romney outspent Huck by so much in IA and outspent McCain 3 to 1 in NH and is still struggling to win either? Has he outspent the Rs by as much in MI? Does it matter to winning?

None of this matters.

5) Can anyone catch Huck in SC in two weeks?

No, and it will not matter.

At some point, the number of delegates are going to be started counted, and when you find out that it will ebb and flow, and their is no MO for any one candidate, then you will see that no one will get the majority of the delegates.

1. This race is about new faces. People are genuinely disgruntled with the establishment and want proven difference makers. Advantage Romney
2. Don't know about NH, but I'd have to say that the Dems have more buzz going right now than we do. Minus the Preacher and his Flock.
3. Romney's late bump coupled with the Obama tidal wave will put Romney on top comfortably. It won't be close.
4. Somewhat but not really. Why? The overwhelming evangelical vote was a little to obvious, not in a bigoted way but in a narrow identity voting sort of way.
5. If Romney wins in NH and MI he will crush Huckabee. Much better suited to unite the base and much broader appeal will win the day.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

1) New faces, without a doubt.

2) Should be a large turnout, plus its warm out.

3) Mitt might get close, but not over the top.

4) Depends how much this fact is mentioned.

5) I think it will look like Iowa for the Rs.

1. "Moving beyond partisanship" is a slogan that means nothing. "Compomise" is codespeak for conservatives giving in to liberals. Obama is not going to compromise on anything.

2. All I hear are the news reports that indicate record turnout. I have no reason to believe it's not true. In 1988, the Dems had record turnout too, more than the R's too.

3. McCain is still a slight favorite - I give him 60/40 odds of winning. A Suffolk tracking poll gives Mitt a slight lead, although several other polls show McCain holding on. I'll say it's probably McCain by about 4 pts.

4. It doesn't matter to voters one bit. It is a tool used by pundits that like to whack Romney over the fact that he's spent so much and lost to Huck.

5. Yes. Although Huck may win with a small plurality if McCain, Romney, Fred, and Rudy split the anti-Huck vote.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

1. dunno, but if the former, you can't count out Rudy either, and if the latter (maybe in either case) you could add Huck as well.

2/3. probably similar, though as stated above, its more an "independent" gap. though with polls showing Obama running away with things there could be a backwash of independents showing up to vote for McCain. I think McCain holds Romney off, but the largish margin that seemed like it might materialize before the weekend won't.

4. no.

5. unlikely, though who knows in this wacky primary season.

IMHO the name 'Super Duper Tuesday' is pretty stupid, even if it is the name wikipedia chose.

My preference: Super Fat Tuesday (since it is on Fat Tuesday and all). Wonder how many people will be out drinking that day instead of voting.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

If Drudge is right about the Dem turnout for New Hampshire, I wonder what this says about the national election. Notice that the Sec of State is only looking for Democratic ballots. Could the Dems successfully use Rove's maximize party turnout strategy against us?

From Drudge:

"Secretary of State is making runs to Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua – to bring extra democratic ballots. Many towns are reporting shortages... Developing..."