WHY STAY IN?
The press is anointing John Kerry the Democratic nominee, just like they anointed Howard Dean just 3 weeks ago. So, if Kerry's got this thing wrapped up, why should the other guys stay in?

Howard Dean. Because Kerry doesn't have this wrapped up and Dean showed in his New Hampshire speech the ability to control himself and to sound something other than angry -- he was actually measured, mature and optimistic. If he doesn't win any of next week's primaries, he should stay in because he has the money, and someone needs to be there to pick up the pieces when people find out that allegedly proud Vietnam Veteran Kerry spent his post-war days doing Ho Chi Minh's dirty work on the homefront by maligning his fellow soldiers as war criminals.

John Edwards. He stays in because he can still beat Clark and be the southern friendly alternative to the northeastern liberal elites. If Democrats are really looking for someone who can beat Bush, they're eventually going to have to look at an electoral map and figure out where Kerry (who thinks he can win without any southern states) can get to 270.

Wesley Clark. If Edwards had been able to really beat the screwball General in New Hampshire, then he would be finished. But Clark has some hope that there is no viable looking alternative to the NE Elites, and that a poor showing by Edwards in SC will be enough to remove all hope for Edwards. Besides, Edwards won't go on any longer than he is viable in order to be in line for the Veep slot, which he must have to remain an option in 2008. Clark also has the ego thing, and he'll stay in as long as it doesn't put him in the poorhouse.

Joe Lieberman. It's probably about time for Joe to go, since his MoJoe doesn't seem to be working.

Dennis Kucinich. He'll stay in because he likes the attention and thinks it will help him pick up chicks.

Al Sharpton. He's hoping that Dean and Kerry battle it out all spring, with no one getting enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Al will hope to get over 15% of the vote in a few southern states, giving him enough delegates to throw some weight around in Boston and become the kingmaker. Now that's a scary thought.

TELL A LIE LONG ENOUGH
Following the primary race has forced me to listen to the lower echelon Democrats talk up their particular favorite. Besides the typical liberal claptrap and blatant contradictory nonsense, the one comment that they all feel obliged to make is that Bush didn't really win an election. Yeah, yeah, forget about the Electoral College and the Constitution and all that. And forget about the many recounts where Bush ALWAYS came out victorious. Forget about Florida Election Law. Never mind that the obvious bad actor was Gore and his instant lawyer invasion and his taking away the right to vote of those serving in the military. They,(eg. Clark's son, Kerrey's wife, Edward's wife, various Dem activists) say Bush only won the vote in the Supreme Court. Apparently it is O.K. for the Florida Supreme Court to act against the will of the people of Florida as expressed through the laws created by their representatives, but it is not O.K. for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the rights of them. Nevermind the unfair picking of choice counties to recount for Gore. Forget about the old partisan hags divining the intentions of voters as they examine every f'ing chad. Who knows how many votes were criminally added for Gore by bending and twisting and tapping the cards. Does anyone honestly put it past that hysterical crowd we all saw on T.V.? And let's not dwell on the insipid argument that some people were just way too stupid to be able to use such complex machinery as a piece of cardboard with punchholes. What does it say about the Democrat elite, they know all those really stupid people would have voted for their guy. Let's not ask ourselves what other people are being "disenfranchised". What about the lazy? The dead? Oh yeah, they aren't necessarily disenfranchised if they are Dems.

I could go on and on. I remember thinking such silly non-cynical thoughts as "Now that Gore has finally conceded(again), the Democrats will do what is best for the Nation and accept the results." That's the last time I will underestimate the bitter pettiness of the Dems. There are two types of Democrats who continue with this charade- the ones that are lying to themselves because it keeps them going and the ones who are lying to other Democrats to piss them off enough to get out and vote. The ones I've heard in this campaign are certainly of the latter, maybe of both. It's a talking point. It may well be working, like the phone calls to old retirees in Florida telling them they may have voted for the "Nazi Pat Buchanan" because of "nasty Republican shenanigans". And don't think that Florida was the last time elections will be called into question. All the millions spent to upgrade voting booths across the country will mean nothing next time there's a close one that doesn't go the Democrats way. Ours is a very closely split nation, and the continuance of it depends on good people acting civilly when an election doesn't go their way. It is a perilous condition when an out-of-power Party that desires nothing but power will do anything to regain it.

WHAT THE HELL ARE EARLY RETURNS?
How can there be returns when the polls haven't closed? Rich Lowry thinks he's got numbers.

SOURCES SAY IN EARLY RETURNS: [Rich Lowry]
Kerry 36, Dean 31, Edwards 12, Clark 12


Posted at 02:03 PM

And if Clark beats Edwards, then NH Dems are just as nutty as the General is.

RICH LOWRY GOES AFTER JOHNNY POPULIST
In today's National Review Online, Rich Lowry attacks John Edwards:

This is a populism with a distinct trial-lawyer cast. Anything that companies do to make a profit is basically a crime, and Edwards is going to go after them, just as he did as a trial lawyer in the medical-malpractice cases that made his $12 million to $60 million fortune. Edwards makes no notable call for self-reliance or individual responsibility, since in his worldview people basically aren't up to it.

Edwards calls his rap "optimism," but it is deeply pessimistic in what it says about our individual capacities to fend for ourselves. It is dishonest besides. His tale of how corporate special interests dominate Washington is infantile. Corporate interests work partly to protect themselves from other interests, including trial lawyers.

This attack, and singling out of Edwards, is unfair. Doesn't this describe the Democrat Party as a whole? How is John Kerry or Howard Dean any different in their approach? Isn't it the Democratic Party who insists in election after election that people need government to take care of them, to protect them from the evil, inhuman corporations to buying their meds?

ELECTION PROJECTION
Here's an interesting exercise -- an attempt to project the popular and electoral vote if the election were held today. Where? At Electionprojection.com, of course.

Currently, the projection is showing an electoral vote win for Bush, 370-168. Bush wins Gore states MI, PA, WI, MN, OR, WA (and others) under this scenario. The formula is here, and while I could quibble with some assumptions (that job approval polls should be weighted more heavily than the match-up poll), it is an interesting exercise and will be fun to watch. Will the methodology change as we decide who the actual Democrat nominee will be? I'm putting a link to Election Projection on the right so we can keep track.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PREDICTION
Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman. OK, so I'm not going out on a limb. This is what the polls say. The result, it will be a two-man race between Kerry and Edwards when they leave New Hampshire. Longshot prediction is that Edwards places second and Lieberman beats Clark on the strength of independent voters. Ending the campaigns of Dean and Clark is bad for the Republicans, but good for the country.

Long range prediction is a Kerry/Edwards ticket that I think has a good chance of winning the general election.