« Scenes from the Ada County caucuses | Main | Help Obama in WA and other states »

February 07, 2008


All right - asked over at New West as well. What now happens to the delegates Romney acquired?

I don't know, but I imagine he'll release them at some point before the convention, possibly with the endorsement he stopped short of today.

He had far more than Edwards did on the Dem side, so they theoretically could make a difference - but only if Huckabee starts surging now and catches McCain, which is unlikely.

I think there's a fair chance Romney is either angling for the VP slot or for a cabinet post, and that we could also see him return in 2012.

Okay - thanks. I was doublechecking. He suspended his campaign so unless he releases them, they're still 'his' in essence.

His speech was just disgusting....terra & more fear.

McCain only needs 400 more delegates, so there won't be an "11th hour entrant". Most of the hard-right Idaho Republicans are probably Ron Paul fans anyway. Hopefully they'll stay home come election day -- Idaho will still vote for McCain in the General Election, of course, but it might help Democrats out in the Senate and 1st CD race.

Anyway, all the excitement's on the Democratic side now. Since there's basically no way that either candidate will get enough elected delegates to win the nomination (thanks to the "proportional" rules) it'll all come down to the superdelegates. When they go with the establishment candidate (Sen. Clinton) many of the new voters getting so excited about Sen. Obama will stay home in November, resulting in McCain taking all the Bush 2004 states, plus maybe Wisconsin and/or Pennsylvania.

This is not my doing... I merely foretell.

Bubblehead, are you saying that most of the Idaho GOP faithful agree with Ron Paul's policies on Iraq?!

As for the Dems, Obama will win at least five and probably more/all of the seven votes (WA, NE, LA, ME, VA, MD, DC) occurring between now and next Tuesday, so I think you'd better hold off on prognosticating beyond that - especially with HRC having to dip into the Clinton bank acct and ask staff to go without pay.

Uh huh, Bubbles. Do we have to review your track record again? Hard right Republicans voting Wrong Paul? I don't think so. There ain't a single social conservative voting for a libertarian. His support is almost entirely made up of libertarians, kooks, and anti-war Republicans scared of Democrats, more specifically Clintons.

And I had a bipartisan octogenerian politician surprise me the other day who predicted that, should Obama be the candidate, he will be the first Democrat since Johnson to win Idaho. I'm becoming a believer. Because I think unenthused Idaho Republicans might be the ones staying home next November.

And the reason is, Obama will be the candidate. The remaining states favor him. He has a seemingly endless source of money. And he's making believers out of the superdelegates who you mistakenly assume are pledged. True some have publicly declared but it ain't over till Hillary sings.

Regardless of your politics, one thing pundits seem to be missing is the fact that in the last two weeks, the country just made a significant shift to the left. We just need certain Republican lite Dems to recognize that being more Republican is not the answer. The answer is to stop being afraid to espouse popular progressive policies that reflect Idaho values.

But I do think you're correct that there will be no insurgent in the Republican party. But they may stage something outside the party. Either way they lose.

Julie, Risch, Romney co-chairman, has already endorsed McCain. I'm sure he was choking at the time. Click my name.

I never said they were voting for Ron Paul -- I believe, though, that in their heart of hearts, they support more of Paul's policies than those of McCain and Huckabee (especially on immigration and government spending). I also never said, or even implied, that the superdelegates are pledged -- I do know, however, that they mostly represent the Democratic Party establishment, and are more likely to vote for the Establishment candidate. And the Democratic Establishment has a track record of supporting the wrong candidate.

We'll see later in the year who's right. And if you're willing to, Sisyphus, I'll bet you any amount of money that Sen. Obama does not win Idaho's electoral votes this year.

LOL Bubbles. I hope you're wrong. My eternal, and some say irrational, optimism is the reason for carrying around this pseudonym.

Hmmmm. I think that the early dedication by many superdelegates to Hillary may be explained by her being the "establishment" candidate. But everyone of those superdelegates is familiar with power politics and the record turnouts by young voters in red and blue states has got to be turning some heads and changing some minds. Obama's the real deal and a great contrast to a pro-war, baseless, blase' Republican candidate with an anger control problem, who is, shall we say, more reminiscent of the last century than the one we find ourselves in.

Wellll - that settles that. I'm not having that Bubblehead over for lunch any time soon. Ya bummed me, man!

oh - for .... sakes... OUT should be in there!

As in, "Ya bummed me OUT, man!"

[One of these days, I'll learn to use the preview button. ;-) ]

The comments to this entry are closed.

We're All in This Together