Posted on 02/22/2008 11:27:13 PM PST by Kurt Evans
The John McCain camp informed us yesterday that it is mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee to win the nomination. What they won't say is that McCain stands a good chance of losing the nomination as long as Huckabee stays in the race.
Huckabee only has to win half of the remaining delegates to block McCain from the nomination. And even if he falls a few short of that, many of the delegates in McCain's column will be unbound delegates who may in fact vote for anyone they choose on the first ballot...
The McCain camp thinks the "mathematically impossible" rhetorical ploy will hide a few obvious facts from the voting public, who tend to believe the media pundits rather than research how the nomination process actually works...
McCain will not be the nominee until he has 1,191 bound delegates pledged to him...
There are 774 delegates left to win. If John McCain has exactly 804 delegates (and 18 of these are unbound delegates who are still able to change their mind), then he needs an additional 387 to clinch the nomination with 1,191.
Ironically half of 774 is exactly 387... Huckabee only needs to get 51 percent of the remaining delegates to block McCain...
McCain currently has 796 bound delegates and 18 unbound delegates. McCain needs 395 bound delegates to reach 1,191 in the remaining states.
Now here's the math ...
Wisconsin - 37 bound and 3 unbound
Puerto Rico - 20 bound and 3 unbound
Texas - 137 bound and 3 unbound
Ohio - 0 bound and 88 unbound!
Rhode Island - 17 bound and 3 unbound
Vermont - 17 bound
Mississippi - 36 bound and 3 unbound
Pennsylvania - 0 bound and 74 unbound!
North Carolina - 69 bound
Indiana - 27 bound and 30 unbound
Nebraska - 30 bound and 3 unbound
Hawaii - 20 bound
Kentucky - 45 bound
Oregon - 27 bound and 3 unbound
Idaho - 26 bound and 6 unbound
New Mexico - 29 bound and 3 unbound
South Dakota - 24 bound and 3 unbound
There are 561 bound delegates left. If we are speaking of the number of bound delegates that John McCain must win, then he needs 71% of the remaining 561 to reach 1,191 bound delegates.
Huckabee will probably win Mississippi, Nebraska, Kentucky, and South Dakota. If this happens, then McCain would have to win just about every remaining delegate to be guaranteed enough bound delegates to win the nomination, and that is not likely to happen...
The media pundits lump both bound and unbound delegates in their totals. This is very misleading. Huckabee may block McCain in the first round delegate vote at the convention and then win on a second, third or fourth ballot. Until someone has a majority, the candidates keep striking deals and the delegates keep voting.
Abraham Lincoln won the nomination on the fourth ballot in the Republican convention in 1860 although William Seward was the pre-convention favorite.
So while unlikely, if there is enough dissent in the GOP come summer, McCain could be denied the nomination if he doesn't have enough bound delegates. But more likely, if he falls short of 1191 in both bound and unbound delegates, then a conservative coalition could arise that would nominate Huckabee or another conservative as the Republican candidate ...
Huckaphoney has no prayer, no matter how long he prays for victory.
"Paulos Invictus," That's it?...That is your statement? :)... I don't know who your candidates, probably Macaca? :), well, hold on to your pants because he will lOSE! :)
bump!
Maybe you two can explain something to me.
Other than the fact that he’s a social conservative, what’s the attraction?
I’m a social conservative, so I truly admire that about him.
However, I am also a fiscal conservative, and a national security conservative.
He is neither of those.
Would you please tell me why you support him over others?
It’s a serious question.
I’m not trying to be a smart alec. ;o)
National security = border security, and we can’t trust McAmnesty to secure our borders.
Huckabee’s not perfect, either, but he must be far better at securing our borders than McCain, because he convinced MINUTEMAN Gilchrist and Duncan Hunter that he has mended his ways, and they endorsed Huckabee, not McAmnesty.
Yup, that’s my statement. Sorry it clashes with yours, but Huck is toast. My candidate was Fred, a real conservative. Sadly, he’s gone.
I believe that Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative. He is, however someone, like Lincoln, Arthur, and McKinley, who would conserve conservative American principles, rather than a Coolidge "all business is goood business" heretic (of which we have many -- maybe even most, in FR).
But, to answer your question, in addition to being an excellent leader in communication and persuasion, I'll post you again with the line items.
MIKE HUCKABEE
- Pro-Life Leadership (instead of begrudging lip service)
- Pro-1st Amendment (against McCain-Feingold)
- Pro-2nd Amendment (America’s first Conceal & Carry Permit Governor)
- Pro-10th Amendment
- Pro-Sovereignty, Anti-Globalist/Corporatist control
- Pro-Israel (no land giveaways for false peace)
- Pro-Marriage
- Pro-Overwhelming Defense
- Pro-Border Security & Immigration Enforcement (”no amnesty” pledge, plus pledged to Sen. Sessions’ criteria)
- Small Government Fiscal Conservative (signed “no tax increase” pledge)
- Pro-Opportunity Society
- Pro-American Business
- Pro-American Wage Earner
- Pro-Tax Reform
- Pro-Personal Investment
- Pro-Individual Healthcare Empowerment
- Pro-Private/Home Education
It would be shameful not to back him up vs. John McCain.
Or, you can just salve your soul with the anti-Huckabee slander. (But remember, Ronald Reagan was less conservative in California than Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, with their 7:1 Democrat legislature.)
Come in, have a look, and pitch in, if you like:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
Thank you both for the information, and your kind replies.
Thanks for the thanks and you’re welcome for the welcome.
“to protect and serve”
BTW, that may not be a completely fair criticism of ol' Cal, but it speaks of the attitude of "country club Republicans" or the "Republican elites," etc. -- people who, for example, see "free trade" in terms of gives license to multinational corporations, rather than what provides for the economic liberty of American citizens.
His actual, famous quote, I think is, "The business of America is business."
Other than the fact that he’s a social conservative, what’s the attraction? I’m a social conservative, so I truly admire that about him.
You know, I am cursed by not being able to write short. Probably because I want to make the whole case in one pots. I really don't enjoy this short exchanges with FR members, unless I think they accomplish something... I would bet that I could not CHANGE even one's person's mind on anything, of the ones who actually post here :)" I believe that!... I had written a LONG post to you but my computer hung and I lost it! :) so maybe it was destiny.
...Other than the fact that he’s a social conservative, what’s the attraction?... I’m a social conservative, so I truly admire that about him.
Why Huck you ask? As a Social-Conservative I would answer, WHE ELSE?
If I thought for a minute that Huck would be another Carter (Christian Left :), I would not even consider him. The problem with the "Christina Left" is that these people are "so good" they live in another world. You know, someone slaps you and you suppose to turn the other cheek. Always crying for killers rather than the victims, etc. The "Christian Right" has a different approach... And that is where Social-Conservatives fall on, imo.
Don't misunderstand... MONEY, FREEDOM are very important but so are social-values. Money is always important and you should give businesses the ability to make it and create jobs and a good life for its citizens. But not to the point where they destroy or pollute great great parts of the the environment. People who love fishing, boating, canoing, hiking, Kayaking (ME:)... Love beautiful nature, right? I am sure most people here hates to see a polluted, stinking lake or river. However, some people might think a "true conservative" should consider corporation's only obligation is to make $$$$ and to hell with everything else. But I can't believe "conservatives" are all like that.
Now, a second kind of pollution, the destruction of the 'culture' or what we call 'Social-Values.' Same principle, just because $$$ and Freedoms and State rights, and guns and the constitution are important. Social-Values are NOT LESS important if not more important that some of these conservative principles. So it is only natural that for some of us, Social Values are VERY important, enough to place them first and thus the division we seem to have, "Conservatives" Vs. "Social-Conservatives."
Ok, finally, let me try your question. I heard all kinds of allegations against Huck. I have heard him talk at lenght explain all these points. In short, on Defense, he has pledge a strong Military free of Fags. On the border / Illegal Immigration (signed Amnesty pledge). On Social-Values, very strong language with homos and baby killers, so VERY pleased on that too. On Fiscal principles... I like him too, but then I happen to admire Lou Dobbs from Cnn... So what is ok with me, I'm sure is blasphemy with fiscal conservatives. But then look at GW (bigger government, spending...). The point is, no one is perfect and I wonder if anyone can please everyone on every point so it follows one should vote for the candidate that is closer to your most important values or principles.
I would be very unhappy if we have a very good economy but let the environment or allowed corporations to "outsource" every good job simply because it is good for the bottom line. And a lot of other issues like Medicine. All people should have some kind of Medical coverage... I would love if could encourage businesses rather than government to do it. etc etc etc. So I am not impressed by a guy who cares about fiscal values exclusively, NO!... I want someone who are willing to promote the economy, because IT IS IMPORTANT yes, but also willing to care about many other things.
McCain is a man I DON'T TRUST. His CHARACTER IS FLAWED and I don't think there is an inch of his a** that does not belong to some special interest :). I would much rather give Huck the benefit of the doubt or even Obama, it that helps SINK Macaca's presidential aspirations.
Huckabee is (1) still in the race, and (2) not John McCain. At this point, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for a brokered convention. I can't see any way in which that would be worse than a straightforward McCain win.
Even if the result of the convention was the renomination of Bob Dole, I'd consider that an improvement over John McCain. At least Bob Dole isn't going to slaughter Republicans in Congress by drawing cross-over voters.
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, I agree with you on many of your points, but not every point.
Differing opinions makes life more interesting, imo. lol
However, you’ve given me food for thought, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.
I’m sorry you lost your first reply.
Dang...I hate when that happens. ;o)
"At least Bob Dole isn't going to slaughter Republicans in Congress by drawing cross-over voters."
He's a heckuvalot more likeable, too!
Thank you for your reply.
“Nobody has more to feel good about than the Huckabee supporters, he isn’t going to win but you should enjoy every minute of his extraordinary race.”
Thanks for that.
“Maybe we don’t have free will at all.”
I believe that’s what Franklin meant when he said God governs the affairs of man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.