all-encompassingly

pardon my french, but….WTF? as of tuesday, noon EST:

• he leads all comers in delegates and total votes.
• he has come in first in one state and second in two more.
• mccain was a distant third in iowa. huckabee was a distant third in new hampshire. neither even registered in wyoming. thompson finished second in the only western state to vote so far, but managed only a third place finish in iowa and a distant sixth in new hampshire. giuliani, of course, has not cracked the 10% mark in any state so far, and i’m not sure he yet has a top four finish to his name.

mitt has consistently been at the top. so, tell me again, why should he be the one to leave?

he has raised the most money from donors, and people say he has the best national organization.

yet the statements persist about michigan being “do or die” for romney:

No less than, Brian Williams, esteemed nightly news anchor of NBC, the man with the beautiful neck ties and the ability to tie them right, looked excitedly into the camera and breathlessly announced that Romney had to win one of these contests and win one soon or it would all be over. Millions of informed Americans were screaming back at their televisions, “But he did win one! He won Wyoming.” But alas, Mr. Williams cannot hear voices coming the other way.

Sad dog faced, Britt Hume, of Fox News, the blood hound who never gives up on a story he gets his teeth into, mournfully came to the same conclusion only to be corrected by a colleague (ah, fair and balanced, at least sometimes,) who pointed out Wyoming. Hume grunted an apology, but his point still applied, he insisted. And, of course, he was right. If the media says it, then it is so. [source: newsmax]

last night i screamed at my TV when candy crowley on CNN’s AC360 decided, “if mitt goes 3 for 0″ she meant 0 for 3, “he has to get out.”

“if he loses michigan, he’ll be 1 for 4!!!!!!!” i screamed at the TV, “and he’ll have three second place finishes to boot and probably still be leading in delegates!!!!!!!”

can you imagine dropping out when you are in the lead for the delegate race? that just seems incomprehensible. yet if the news media continue to tell people mitt hasn’t won anything, this is very possible.

problem is, the media scum might continue this after nevada, too:

I can see how it was easy for the media to ignore WY results since it’s the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists.) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded, and Mitt actually got more delegates out of WY (8) than McCain got out of NH (7).

But that’s in the past already . . . but NV looms in the future and we need to insist that it should count. Sadly, we’re already seeing how downplayed NV is in the national media coverage.

Even though the the media is covering NV pretty heavily for the it for the Democratic side, they’re relatively ignoring it for the GOP. My paranoid side says: “Figures, since Romney stands a good chance of winning it . . . of course the MSM will downplay it.” I’m actually convinced that Romney will win it (and if he wins MI, Romney will win NV BIG). Unfortunate timing has the NV caucus on the same day as the SC primary (which is monopolizing the media’s coverage.)

But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?

OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered “top-teir” candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, in the past, the race has been winnowed down to two people already and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them. Not so this year. Some are arguing that FL may play the role this year that SC has played in the past.

But lets look at the two states objectively.

Both are on Jan 19th

NV: 34 delegates up for grabs
SC: 24 delegates up for grabs

NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show/run strong in such a state for the general election)
SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south no matter what.

NV: First western state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states)
SC: First southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.

Objectively, NV looks MORE important than SC to me! [source: comMITTed to romney]