Sir, this analysis is reasoned and thoughtful, please demonstrate the appropriate amount of pre-election hysteria or the internet will have to revoke your privileges.

Thank you.

Yeah, I must admit a bit of cognitive dissonance when I peruse CNN (and every other damn n00z site) these days.

Yup.

(In 2008, my plan is to restrict my blog comments to (a) "Yup" and (b) "What's wrong with you people, are you all on crack?")

Agreed on all points. Just out of curiosity, why will McCain get waxed in SC? Without Karl Rove spreading rumors, what is his major drawback there? Or are they just loving Huckabee?

I love it. Kucinich is his own, only delegate. The jokes just write themselves.

The jokes just write themselves

They have to include (as is the rule regarding Kucinich jokes) some reference to his height and to the beauty of his wife.

You're granting all the superdelegates to Clinton on the grounds that she's the insider candidate, yes?

I like this post. Bush's candidacy pretty much convinced me that the candidate is chosen way in advance and the primaries are just window dressing, and here you're showing how it works.

7: And, of course, the alien vote.

(1) As Apo notes at #9, superdelegates may be declared but they aren't committed.

Superdelegates are officeholders or party leaders who act as officially uncommitted delegates. These were added for two reasons. First, it allows Mayor Joe to be a delegate without requiring him to join up with a campaign and hope the candidate does well enough to get him to the convention. Second, it provides a group of officially uncommitted delegates, which could make a close convention more interesting and/or flexible.

(2) When forecasting totals, remember that most states award Democratic delegates proportionally, and most states award Republican delegates on a winner-take-all basis. A long string of second-place finishes leaves Edwards in striking distance, but would be a much tougher challenge for Romney.

most states award Democratic delegates proportionally

IIRC, there are no longer any Democratic primaries or caucuses that use the winner-take-all system.

If I may inject a bit of paranoia into this learned discussion, I'd like to point out the 10+ point difference between the polls and the actual vote. This was the subject of much anguished debate after Ohio in 2004, and here it is again in another key vote. So what explanations do we have? It's easy to dismiss poll results and say that pollsters don't know what the real people think, but modern polling techniques have proved to be highly accurate, except in Ohio and Florida in 2004. What factor could possibly throw them so far off?

Given that the projections would be solid, based on the data collected, we are left with only a couple of disturbing possibilities. One is that the vote was rigged, as it may well have been in Ohio and Florida, perhaps by sinister forces who want to see Hillary as the candidate. The other is that people are lying to the pollsters, saying they will vote Obama and then voting Clinton. It is hard to believe that the voters in NH are any more likely to be closet racists than the voters in Iowa, so I really don't know what to think. It's just damned odd.

I would like to point out though that Romney could just keep getting second place and still take the nomination outright if McCain and Huckabee keep swapping first place finishes. Romney’s chances are even better if Guliani can take New York. It is happing up to be an interesting primary season.

I am not convinced that all the talk in the media was unwarranted.

As you pointed out, there are 48 states left to vote. Had Obama won NH by as much as he won Iowa, the delegate count wouldn't be that different from your reported numbers, but the legitimate forecast for voting in the other 48 states would be heavily shifted toward Obama. The stories would have flowed his way, as would the money.

So, in that light, don't you think all the talk about how important NH was to Hillary was warranted?

a tie for first between Obama and Clinton with Edwards a respectable second

"second" s/b "third"

If there's a tie for first, nobody's in second.

That's classic pre-9/11 thinking, Ned.

It is hard to believe that the voters in NH are any more likely to be closet racists than the voters in Iowa

But the voters in NH get to vote in a closet (i.e. by secret ballot). That's not the case in Iowa's caucuses (i.e. who each caucus voter selects isn't secret).

My guy, Ron Paul, apparently has KKK and tinfoil hat people clamoring for the microphone, wanting to sing his praises. Naturally they are the first ones to get air time (gulp). Stick a fork in him.

And then Hillary vs. McCain or Romney in the final battle.

Bad bad bad bad bad....

Why'd you Democrats scare away Richardson? He was the least bad of the winnable dems?