lieberman just gave his victory speech, claiming he came in third. He would have done himself well if he bowed out tonight, but now he just depraved himself further.

Kerry/Edwards is a tough ticket, kids. I don't care what you say, that ticket's gonna get votes, lots of them. Even with that rancid husband, I mean, wife of Kerry.

...if it's Kerry/Edwards. JFK the 2nd still has to shore up his support with Hispanics in the Far West as well as the South, which is why I think in the end you're going to see a Kerry-Bill Richardson ticket if Kerry does hold on and win the nomination.

But both Kerry/Edwards or Kerry/Richardson have to shore up support with Blacks, which is why you would expect to see Kerry-X (where is a variable TBD, not the Latin for ten). Other holes may still exist, and there is only on VP slot. That's the problem with being an agglomeration of special interests.

However, it was good while the hope of a Dean nomination lasted. The best one can hope is a futile fight to the end, followed by a 54/55 to 46/45 victory.

I really don't think people vote for the borrom of the ticket; however, I think people vote for the nominee's choice for vice-president and if it is a sound choice.

55-45 is what I've been thinking will happen in November - a solid but not spectacular Bush win. A landslide of Dean would have been nice but Kerry is respectable enough to get over 40% and hold the Dems together for Hillary in '08.
As for Bush I'd rather see a solid (or modest win) with pickups in the Senate and House than a landslide Bush win with no Senate or House pickups.

Hey Kerry, when November rolls around, just remember this:

We're voting, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!

In 1968 Kennedy didn't even get into the race until after the New Hampshire primary, and was killed by the Palestinian in June just as he was wrapping up the nomination by winning a decisive victory in the (then) second largest state. This year, less than 40 years later, it's less than 200 hours since the first delegates where officially chosen by a few tens of thousands of people in two small and otherwise ignorable states*, and it's considered all over. There is something really wrong with all this.

* Let's face it, when did Iowa or New Hampshire last really matter in a general election, even as part of a larger bloc?

"Let's face it, when did Iowa or New Hampshire last really matter in a general election, even as part of a larger bloc?"

Umm, trick question? 2000. George W. Bush, 48.07% in New Hampshire, Al Gore 46.80%, Ralph Nader 3.90%, Bush gets the state's 4 electoral votes, absolutely necessary for his 271 electoral vote total.

No Nader, Gore might well (probably?) win New Hampshire, and get 270 electoral votes even without Florida.

I think Raoul's point is a good one. Why is it that NH-Iowa, with a combined total of 11 electoral votes, gets to essentially choose the nominee?

Mike M.-- I supposed one would have to ask Presidents Paul Tsongas (1992), Pat Buchanan (1996), and John McCain (2000) that question.