I saw Matthews at a Hilary event asking her a question. She responded (paraphrasing) "I'm never quite sure how to handle men who are obsessed with me" at which point Matthews repeated "I'm not obsessed" about five times. Quite funny.

he knows better. He relishes his self image as an elite beltway insider. He knows everything and nobody tells him something he thinks isn't so so (or refutes something he does think is so)

That said, he was actually right this one time with dee dee.

she was trying to claim that Hillary was never really the front runner and that expectations were too high in IA.'

Tweety was justified in saying HOGWASH because everyone knows she was dubbed the favorite before the 04 elections were even over.

The exit polls showed a 39-34 Obama win.

That means the exit polls, the most reliable of all polling data, were off by 8%.

I was a statistics major in college, and I'm telling you, with the improved methodology that exit polls have today, that the chances of an exit poll being off by that much are off-the-charts miniscule.

We're talking odds-of-winning-the-powerball miniscule.

Especially with the large sample set they took and the relatively small state. The exit polling margin of error was +/- 2%. For them to be off 8% would represent one of three things

A) Completely messed up methodology. After the beating that exit-polling took in '00 and '04, these outfits have cleaned up their methodology and have taken great pains to avoid this kind of mistake

or

B) Tampering

or

C) Voting machine error

I've never bought into the conspiracy theories, but for those that do, this gives them some ammunition.

Remember, exit polls come AFTER people voted, so they would measure any last-minute "sea change".

Even in 2000 and 2004, the exit polling was not THAT far off.

We've all heard about Hillary's campaign "machine"....
who knew that it might have a "Diebold" logo plate on it?

I'm only half-joking.

I'm not saying that something went on here.... I'm just sayin'.

as raising money goes.

I think the turnout being older than expected (than I had expected, anyway) probably hurt him. And it sounds like the independent-type NH voters went for McCain because they knew he was in a close race with Romney -- if one or the other had been more ahead in polls, Paul might have got more of those votes.

His complete and utter mishandling of the old racist, homophobic newsletters was enough for me to take his name off of my car bumper.

Looks like I'm officially undecided again.

He spent $2.4 million on ads in NH and had 65 people at his event tonight, according to NPR. That's about $37,000 per attendee.

Huckabee will beat him in Florida and he can go back to his book signings and start looking for his next wife.

You'd think he could have done better than that. Somehow he has to win SC, *maybe* second place, if he wants to stay in the race. Maybe he'd make a good VP candidate for one of the other guys.

Supposing he drops out, I'm not sure who I would fall back to at this point. Not Paul, who I consider a nutjob. Not Huck, who is basically a member of the religious left. Not Duncan Hunter, who needs to drop out already.

That leaves Rudy, Mitt, and McCain, each of whom is flawed in their own list of ways. Although, in the end, I suspect I would vote for any of Rudy, Mitt, or McCain over any of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

So, it's as if we were five minutes into a football game, right?

To make it worse, both Iowa and NH allocated delegates in propotion to the vote -- so all this talk about the "winner" is nonsense. Isn't Romney leading in the delegate count right now? 

However, this "proportional crap" is all over for the Republicans. They like their winner-take-all war of all against all (or maybe they just like to have their king crowned without all this ambiguity about their identity).

But those crazy hippie Democrats will be doing proportional representation throughout the whole thing. They insist on counting every vote at the end and seeing which candidate got the most...crazy!