Well, I made it to the Montlake Alehouse, and I hear the Mittster has already been declared the winner. The real battle is for second place.

Discuss.

5:12: Early returns suggest that the Newtster is in 4th or 5th place. What a tumble. Just yesterday the polls suggested he was in a three-way tie for second place.

5:16: Here were the last few polls from NH (via Real Clear Politics) to establish some benchmarks.

• Rasmussen: Romney 37%, Paul 17%, Huntsman 15%, Santorum 13%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 1%
• Suffolk: Romney 37%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 9%, Perry 1%
• WMUR/UNH: Romney 41%, Paul 17%, Huntsman 11%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 8%, Perry 1%
• Suffolk: Romney 33%, Paul 20%, Huntsman 13%, Santorum 10%, Gingrich 11%, Perry 1%
• PPP: Romney 35%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 1%

5:22: It looks like the current score is: Romney ~35%, ~Paul 25%

5:29: The Mittster speaks. It sure sounds like a “Hope and Change” speech to me…but, you know, full of Mitt.

5:31: “President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial”. Where the fuck does he get this bullmitt?!?

5:34: Mitt claims that Obama lost the tripple-A rating. I recall S&P literally singled out the uncertainty of the process in Congress for the downgrade. And we know what party in Congress led to the uncertainty.

5:36: During the 2008 campaign season, McCain found himself on the losing end of the issues as the economy crashed. Now, the Mittster seems to be campaigning against Obama on a platform of “restoring America”, being “hopeful for the future”, “best days ahead”, etc.

But given the recent acceleration of the recovery (that began in mid-2009), I cannot help but wonder if Mitt finds himself on the wrong side of the issues in 2012, but sort of the converse of the 2008 problem: an increasingly hopeful America being told that things suck and can be better. I think this is what happened during Reagan’s re-election year.

5:43: In the comment thread, Michael give the link to the AP scorecard here. Thanks Michael.

I’m listening to stuff on NPR on the radio, because all the teevees have basketball on them right now.

5:45: I love that the last 5 polls all have Rick Perry at 1% and the AP results have Perry at…1%.

5:46: Jon Huntsman is a disappointing 3rd place with 17% (so far). It is hard to see any reason for him to stay in the race. He is not competitive in any race that I can think of until Super Tuesday.

5:49: Here is the score so far:

• Romney 35%
• Paul 25%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 10%
• Santorum 10%
• Perry 1%

6:16: (*snicker*) Ron Paul said, “Intellectual Revolution.”

6:46: There are too many people here…I haven’t been able to listen to the coverage. Damn these social venues!

7:13: With 66 percent of the vote in (for the Republicans):

• Romney 38%
• Paul 23%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 10%
• Santorum 10%
• Perry 1%

Mitt gets a solid double-digit lead, which means it is all but over for the Republican primary contest.

10:00: With 95% reporting….

• Romney 39%
• Paul 23%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 9%
• Santorum 9%
• Perry 1%

Gingrich and Santorum fall into the single digits.

It’s the first primary of the 2012 election season! So please join us for an evening of primary politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

I’ll be live-blogging the New Hampshire returns starting around 5:00 PM. We meet at our usual spot, the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but I should be there shortly after 5:00 pm. (Note: there is a Huskey game that starts at 7:00 pm…it means the Montlake Alehouse will be plenty busy until shortly before the game. But join me early if you can.

Can’t make it to Seattle? There are also meetings tonight of the Tri-Cities, Bellingham, and Vancouver, WA chapters. On Thursday, Drinking Liberally Bremerton meets. And next Monday there are meetings of the Woodinville the Olympia, the Yakima, and the Shelton chapters.

With 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Meh.

The bloodiest war in America’s history, on a per capita basis, took place in New England in 1675.

— Michael Tougias in King Philip’s War in New England (America’s First Major Indian War)

Things have turned a little ugly in the Republican primary reality show. Look at these recent headlines:

• Gingrich: Romney taxed the blind in Mass
• Anti-Mitt film attacks ‘corporate raiders,’ tells ‘a story of greed’
• Vendetta: Newt Gingrich has made it his personal mission to destroy Mitt Romney
• Santorum: GOP would suffer under Romney
• Ron Paul Attacks Santorum as Spendthrift in New Hampshire Swing
• Jon Huntsman blasts ‘stupid’ video by Ron Paul backers

What this means is that tonight’s New Hampshire GOP primary debate will be a veritable bloodbath. It’ll be streamed by ABC.

I’ll try to liveblog what I can. But feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment thread.

5:56: The pre-game show had devolved into a discussion of Rick Santorum fighting with an 18 year old girl. Santorum got some boos as he left the room, so obviously lost.

6:03: Santorum…”we need a leader, someone who can convey a positive image for the U.S.” “Someone who can paint a vision of what we are about”. He means Santorum?!?

6:05: Newt insinuates that Mitt’s ideological model is “the Wall Street model.”

6:09: Mitt takes credits for creating 100,000 jobs, “net—net”. But then must admit that he is talking about jobs that were created after he had nothing to do with it.

6:11: Mitt keeps suggesting that private sector is useful for creating jobs as President (or Governor). Let’s look at the stats (click for larger image)…

Hmmm…Clinton, Reagan, Johnson. Not big private-sector enterprise-builders.

6:20: At this point, the moderators are staying out of it and letting the candidates bludgeon and hack at each other.

6:21: The moderator tries to lure Huntsman and then Romney into a fight. They call for a ceasefire to turn the attack toward Obama.

6:25: Rick Perry gets a softball question about the military and babbles for a few sentences before his brain warms up.

6:26: Newt is no Chickenhawk! Because…his father served in the military.

6:27: The moderator asks Ron Paul if he would call Newt a Chickenhawk. “Yeah, I would.” He doesn’t.

6:29: Newt comes back and, essentially, calls Ron Paul a liar (“…long history of inaccurate statements”). Nice.

6:30: Ron Paul gets asked about his newsletters. If he had any balls, he’d walk out of the debate….

6:31: Paul asks, “how many times do you see a rich white person get the electric chair?” Perhaps Rick Perry could take that one?

6:34: During the break…the commentators are disappointed in the battle…not enough ganging up on Mitt.

6:37: Looking back at that chart…George W. Bush had lots of private sector experience. He destroyed lots of companies before trying to do the same to the U.S.

6:39: Mitt hearts Contraception. “It’s working just fine. Leave it alone.” Seems to not understand the Constitutional question being asked.

6:42: Ron Paul believes in a right of privacy guaranteed in the Constitution, which means that contraception is good.

6:43: Rick Santorum dodges the contraception question by talking about abortion. Whimp!

6:47: Santorum: Defining marriage is a federal issue, but adoption for same-sex couples is a state’s rights issue.

6:48: Mitt: Same sex relationships are fine…just don’t call it “marriage.” Because that somehow goes against thousands of years of human history.

6:53: Rick Perry claims that the Obama administration is engaged in a “war on religion.” What the fuck?!?

6:55: On withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Huntsman gives a thoughtful, analytical answer. The Mittster spews some talking points.

6:57: Newt: “Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess.”

7:00: Santorum engages in a babblefest…something about the first important thing in the war in terror is to de-sanitize our documents to get rid of political correctness. You could say, we should Santorumize them instead.

7:02: Newt want to outlaw “American Presidents bowing before Saudi Kings.” There is some bold foreign policy vision for you!

7:03: Ron Paul is in full babble mode. Mentions, “ping pong”, “pirates”, “”blow-back.”

7:07: Babblery must be contageous…I couldn’t really follow that last bit by Santorum leading up to the break.

7:14: Mitt claims Obama wants to turn the U.S. into a social welfare state. Funny…I’ve never heard Obama say anything like this.

7:17: Huntsman: “We need to stimulate confidence in the creative class of this country.” Santorum doesn’t want everyone to have the opportunity to go to college

7:20: Mitt slips into illiteracy, “our Democrat friends.”

7:21: Ron Paul slips into dementia claiming that the “Republicans stand for less spending.” Not in my lifetime!

7:26: First Perry, now Romney gets into a prepared speech. Low content.

7:27: Newt makes a funny.

7:28: …but I’m not sure what his point was.

7:28: Rick Santorum doesn’t believe in a middle class. Don’t panic, folks…it’s only semantic. “Middle Income group” is, apparently, okay. Problem solved.

7:30: Mitt claims the Obama administration has opened up no new trade relationships for foreign countries. I believe the fact checkers will have some fun with that one.

7:32: Mitt hits Huntsman for “implementing the policies of this administration in China.” Huntsman talks about Mitt’s lack of understanding of the trade relationship with China.

7:40: The fluff round has begun…and, mercifully, ended after about one minute.

7:43: As always, the pundits think Mitt Romney wins by not getting too beat up.

Last night I stumbled across Larry Ishmael’s YouTube announcement and campaign website for his bid for the open WA-01 congressional seat. Here is a little more information.

Larry was the Republican who challenged Rep. Jay Inslee (D) for WA-01 in 2006 and 2008. He lost both elections 32% to 68%. Should he seriously pursue the seat this year, his Republican competition^* will likely be James Watkins, Inslee’s challenger in 2010, and John Koster, who ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) in 2004 and 2010.

From Larry’s blog we learn:

I really am enjoying this year in South Africa. […] My singular focus has been the dissertation, but I also have to remember that there is an election year coming up and I need to be positioned for that now. So, I spent Monday working on my “unofficial announcement” that I will be running for the 1st Congressional seat again in 2012. I ran in 2006 and 2008, but took 2010 0ff to concentrate on my Ph.D. work. Now, as my dissertation work is starting to shape up nicely, I hope to be Dr. Ishmael by the time the election rolls around next year.

After pondering potential opponents, Larry clarifies his campaign announcement:

Now that I have informally announced, I can run my Congressional Exploratory Campaign until I have raised the limit for “testing the waters,” and then I will officially declare and register with the FEC. There is much work to assemble a team between now and then, and that means I need to start that process right now even though I’m still in South Africa.

On the issues, Larry sounds like a typical “shrink government” Republican, but with a big emphasis on environmental sustainability—sort of like Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) but probably smarter and without all the “I’ve stared down the business end of a gun,” sheriffy bullshit.

Even so, from his Twitter feed we learn he is a anthropogenic climate change denier^&:

@Fun2BTan @ishmael1stcdwa Just so you know, I have scientific evidence of the fact that global warming is not man made.

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) December 1, 2011

And, predictably, he is anti-cap and trade:

Thank God that the Senate stopped Cap and Trade. The House is a bunch of sheep!

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) July 25, 2009

The good news for Larry is that, unlike 2006 when he lived in WA-08, his current residence is in WA-01. In fact, Larry’s condo is near the center of Redmond, a short walk from my own residence.

One other thing I noticed on his issues page:

As a member of the Creek Indian tribe, Larry respects the wisdom of his Native American fore-fathers…

I look forward to having Larry in the race. I mean, if we are going to have more than one Republican going into the top two primary, we might as well have lots of Republicans. And if the voters force a Republican on me as my next Representative, at least we should have someone who will add diversity to Congress and provide a congressional voice for Washington’s Native American community.

So welcome to the race Larry!

^* In the comment thread Larry points out he is running as an independent this time.
^& In the comment thread Larry clarifies his beliefs.

Thom with even more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Mark Fiore: Distract-O-Tron

Young Turks: Unemployment drops to 8.5%.

Thom with more Good, Bad and Very, Very Ugly.

Obama Fights Back:

• Young Turks: Obama makes recess appointment.
• Jon: Obama’s rogue recess appointment of Richard Cordray.
• Young Turks: Republicans react to Obama’s recess appointment.

Young Turks: KS Speaker of House’s “Mrs. YoMama”

Thom: MT Supreme Court says NO to corporate money.

Same Sex Marriage for Washington:

• Gov. Christine Gregoire (D-WA) will introduce same-sex marriage equality bill:
• Hypervocal: Washington Governor supports same-sex marriages

Thom on ALEC’s disturbing level of influence.

The 99% Nyan Cat.

Thom: voter fraud is voter fraud except for Republicans.

Greenman: Myth of the mini ice age.

Roy Zimmerman: Happy political new year.

The G.O.P. Primary Reality Show:

• Jon on the Republican Romspringa
• Rick Perry’s Strong Will
• Young Turks: Savage on 8 years of Googling Santorum.
• Alyona’s Tool Time: Santorum’s contraception license to do bad things in bed?
• Olbermann with Dan Savage: Perspective on Rick Santorum’s ascent.
• Sam Seder: Santorum will protect your tax dollars from Black people.
• Stephen: Santorum’s Iowa surge.
• Young Turks: Santorum covers for John Ensign.
• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News hides Santorum’s extreme anti-gay history again
• Ann Telnaes: If Rick Santorum were the GOP Nominee.
• Stephen on the fun funness of being Rick Santorum.
• Red State Update: Santorum almost wins.
• Ed and Pap on Romney’s Iowa victory
• Stephen on Mitt, Rick and the Iowa caucus.
• Thom: A surging Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed.
• Laid off worker says Mitt put profits before people.
• Alyona: Mitt Romney represents ‘worst aspects of capitalism’.
• Lowrence O’Donnell: Mitt’s pathetic attempt to rewrite America the Beautiful
• Which Mitt is McCain endorsing?
• John McCain sings the praises of President Barack Obama (via TalkingPointsMemo):
• Sharpton: Newt Gingrich intent on destroying Mitt Romney
• Young Turks: Newt’s laughable switch on Climate Change.
• Newt Gingrich has changes abortion policy hours before Iowa caucuses
• Young Turks: Newt Gingrich is an angry old man.
• ONN:Did media treat Bachmann differently because she is a crazy woman?
• One Minute News: You won’t have Michele to kick around anymore.
• Sam Seder: A farewell to Michele Bachmann
• Michele steps aside.
• Jon: Thus ends America’s interest in anything Iowa
• Who wants to pretend they’re not a millionaire?

Sam: Mr. 999 is Baaaaaack.

• Young Turks: Have Republicans stopped pretending that they’re not racist?.

Young Turks: Tech Blackout to protest SOPA?

Thom with The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Pat Robertson is declared by God Worst Person in the World.

Three Republican freshmen members of the New Hampshire state house are Worst Person in the World.

Stephen: Catch 2012.

White House: West Wing Week.

One Minute News: The most awkward landlord—tenet relationship ever.

Alyona’s Fireside Chat: Lobbying works…just ask corporations:

Young Turks: Citizens United overturned in MT and NYC.

Ed: Scott Walker’s latest problem.

Thom: Oil barons just threatened the President of the U.S..

Stephen takes a tip from Pat Robertson.

Lawrence O’Donnell: GOP campaign lights up comedians.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

This is a sad commentary about either (1) the state of the Washington state political press machine, or (2) Larry Ishmael’s PR abilities. Maybe both.

You may remember that Ishmael ran against Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2006 and 2008. According to his video, he was busy working on a Ph.D. in Economics in 2010 (at the University of Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa, according to his bio). He expects to finish his PhD in December, 2012.

But for now…Heeeeee’s Baaaaack!

The “breaking” news is that Larry Ishmael is running for congress again in the 1st CD!

The “not so breaking” part about it is that Ishmael announced his candidacy sometime in mid-December. His You Tube announcement is dated December 12th.

A Google news search in the past month on his name reveals:

No results found for “larry ishmael”.

No announcement in a blogosphere search either. Huh.

How did I find it? While working on my Friday Night video thingie, I stumbled across his trove of seven campaign videos released since his announcement.

Sheesh!

Yo! Media…let’s pick up the pace a bit! Or maybe it’s…Yo! Larry…get some PR help!

Ishmael’s entry probably means there will be three Republicans in the race.

As an aside, when he ran in 2006, Goldy noticed that he was living in the 8th CD. That doesn’t violate the laws of man or nature or anything…it just a sign of political tone-deafness. So…it’s probably the latter. Sorry about giving you a hard time Media! Love ya! xxoo

It will be worth listening to Governor Christine Gregoire on KUOW this morning at 9:00. Cool stuff is the table.

One big issue is yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that:

The State has failed to meet its duty under article IX, section 1 by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature recently enacted sweeping reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and it is currently making progress toward phasing in those reforms. We defer to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty, but the judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State’s plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. We direct the parties to provide further briefing to this court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction.

As Publicola points out, this feels like

…one of those damning federal court orders to put a bankrupt business or corrupt union in receivership

The real problem isn’t that lawmakers somehow dislike funding education. Rather, the education funding problem arises from four issues:

1. The worst economy since the Great Depression that has resulted in drastic shortfalls in projected revenue
2. Another Constitutional duty, a balanced budget, that has resulted in massive cuts in numerous state services
3. Republican obstructionism in adequately funding the government
4. Lawmaker’s inability to raise new revenues with a simple majority to a great extent because of the 2/3 majority requirement in Initiative 1053

Many of us believe I-1053 is unconstitutional, and a July court case is pending. The Supreme court has previously weaseled its way out of making a decision about whether an initiative can impose a standard on lawmakers that trumps the state Constitution.

Yesterday Gregoire announced that:

…she plans to bypass the state attorney general’s office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Gregoire says, “fuck you, Rob McKenna,” and goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Given that I-1053 is one of the biggest impediments for lawmakers to adequately fund basic education, and given that the Supreme Court is now playing an active role in forcing lawmakers to meet this Constitutional duty, Gregoire’s request is an offer the Supreme Court cannot refuse.

When Rep. David Wu (OR-1) resigned amid scandal last summer, Republicans smelled blood:

Several factors give newfound hope to the GOP: Wu resigned amid a sex scandal, damaging the Democratic image in the district. The party’s main candidate, Tualatin businessman Rob Cornilles, is returning as a more seasoned campaigner after losing to Wu last year. And Democrats face a potentially divisive primary race that could hurt their prospects in the January 2012 special election.

Yeah…not so much. Yesterday SurveyUSA released a poll for the race that shows Suzanne Bonamici (D) with 50%, Cornilles (R) at 39%, James Foster (L) at 2%, and Steven Reynolds (Oregon Progressive Party) at 2%.

Bonamici’s +11% lead shouldn’t be too much of a surprise…a mid-December Public Policy Polling poll also found Bonamici leading Cornilles by +11% (52% to 41%).

So…it looks pretty likely that Republican hopes in OR-1 will be dashed on January 31.

What Republicans just don’t get, is that, beyond the implicated politician, sex scandals tend to harm Republicans more than Democrats. The broader impact isn’t about what one person does. It’s about the fuckin’ hypocrisy.

That was fun. Seriously…we had a terrific turnout with lots of new faces last night at the Montlake Alehouse. And the contest itself was quite amusing. So here are the thoughts that I came away with.

• Mitt wins by the slimmest of margins—eight fucking votes! Eight votes!
• I couldn’t really hear Santorum’s victory speech. Based on how long it went on, I assume he was just filibustering or trying to put people to sleep before Mitt’s victory speech.
• My favorite (straight) MSM post-game quote (so far) comes from CBS, “Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses….”
• How much of a fucking loser must Mitt Romney feel like now? Four years of nearly continuous campaigning since the 2008 Iowa caucus…Mitt goes from 30,021 votes in 2008 down to 30,015 in 2012.
• In the mid-December debate open thread I wrote :
  

  And how ’bout that Ron Paul at 18%!?! Most of the other nutberger candidates have had their fling with the pole position…Ron Paul should get his shot, too. And to top the whole thing off like a layer of creamy chocolate frosting, we should get Rick Santorum [the] next week.

  So…the MSM meme that the Santorum surge was totally unexpected isn’t quite right.

• This is almost pathetically sad:
  

  Michele Bachmann told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she’s staying in the presidential race as the only true conservative who can defeat the sitting president, despite a bleak showing in the Iowa caucuses.

  This borders on delusional—Bachmann currently polls worse against Obama than even Rick Perry.

  And either she was “misunderinforming” people or needed time to sober up or chat with God. Because this morning she surrenders.

• Rick Perry, either more sober or with God on speed dial, surrendered last night.
• The real winner last night: Barack Obama. Really, he won both caucuses.

More fun next Tuesday!

Well…here we go. At least I think so. I have a few errands to run this afternoon, so I wrote this post well in advance and scheduled it to fire off at 5:00 pm, when the Iowa caucuses start. So…I might still be stuck in traffic or fixing a flat tire or even dead right now.

So…feel free to go on (and on and on) without me, and I’ll catch up right after I order myself a beer. I mean, unless I’m dead.

We will mostly focus on the Republican caucus this evening because, as the LA Times points out:

For Democrats, the process will be simple since President Obama is the party’s de facto nominee.

(And for the benefit of our “low-information commenters” [a.k.a trolls] I’ll point out that, no, “de facto” is not some kind of racial epithet.)

The LA Times does a pretty good job of describing the Republican caucus. But…the Republican Party of Iowa does a better job…they have it down to bullet points:

All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.

That would be 5:00 our time.

The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.

What! No reading of the Constitution?!? What a bunch of Constitution-hating reactionaries! (And shouldn’t the second sentence be its own bullet point?)

After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.

Here is where uncomfortable things might happen—like, say, Santorum getting smeared by a Paulinista.

Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.

Wait…where is the part where they check for government-issued photo ids?

All votes are then collected.

Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.

A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.

Republicans sound so distrustful of Republicans!

RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.

I hope they at least add them up (which is kind-of like counting). I mean, I don’t want to listen to the reports from all 1,774 precincts.

We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,” and “Other.”

“No Preference” votes include those who vote “present,” “no preference, “uncommitted,” or “none of the above.”

That’s the process…enjoy!

5:31: I got here a bit late, and there were three new attendees to chat with. CNN is on the teevee, but I might be totally antisocial and put headphones on to listen to NPRs coverage of the circus caucus.

5:40: I cannot really hear what is going on, but the whizbang graphic on CNN suggests that born-again evangelical Christians rate Santorum as number 2. That sounds about right.

6:07: It is a three way race between Paul, Romney and Santorum, so far. With something like 14,000 votes in…Huntsman has 106.

6:22: That is one hairy-ass microphone cover I see on CNN.

6:25: Santorum slides right by Romney to number 2!

7:04: Romney puts Santorum behind him!

7:05: ….and Santorum surges ahead of Romney!

7:06: I’m getting pretty excited about a last minute Huntsman surge!

7:08: With Santorum in the lead, one must ask: Don’t they have Google in Iowa?!?

7:12: It’s loud…I cannot hear the TV. People are talking to me. Santorum is all over the teevee. I don’t know how much longer I can hold out!

7:25: Promoted comment from Michael: “Romney 23%, Paul 23%, Santorum 23%. The Republicans are having themselves a three-way.”

7:30: Santorum may come out of this in the pole position!

7:38: Okay…so Michele Bachmann isn’t going to win this one. At least she has her Aimes Straw Poll victory to propel her into the lead. Go Michele!

7:40: Gingrich is going to win. I mean, just look at the numbers!

7:44: I heard on the news this evening that Gov. Gregoire has some sort of big announcement tomorrow related to gay marriage. Does this have anything to do with Santorum’s Iowa showing???

7:46: New update. Santorum is sandwiched in the narrow gap between Romney and Paul.

7:49: And, once again, and to Romney’s great shame…Santorum percolates to the top!!!

8:00: James Carville missed his calling in life. He should have been an evil villain in a Batman movie. The Snake™ (says N in Seattle and Rebecca, independently).

8:13: Wow…all night, Romney and Santorum have been swapping positions. Mitt’s on top the Rick’s on top, Mitt’s on top then Rick’s on top.

8:17: Newt speaks. “We are at the beginning of an extraordinarily important campaign.” Yes…there are books to sell!

8:29: Santorum squeaks ahead of Romney. Yeah…well, I cannot wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary, because I want to see Mitt Romney lick Santorum.

8:34: Michele Bachmann says thanks to the 5,891 people of her “home state” of Iowa that voted for her.

8:51: I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As Seattle’s Drinking Liberally organizer, I want to express our deep gratitude 2 u for making tonight so fucking enjoyable”

8:53: Now I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As the person liveblogging at HorsesAss, I want to thank you on everyone’s behalf for making tonight so fucking entertaining!”

8:55: Is that Rick Perry’s daughter standing behind him??? She has his eyes and Steve Tyler’s mouth. My GAWD! The Perry rumors are TRUE!!!!

9:08: My vision of a Santorum—Brownback ticket may yet be realized!

9:09: A decade and a half ago, I voted against Santorum. Even then, long before Dan Savage’s neologism, there was something really, really icky about the man and the candidate.

9:22: Santorum is on the teevee spreading his philosophy….

Please join us tonight for our first 2012 evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight is also the first of the Republican nomination contests. I’ll be there way early, for some liveblogging. I should be there shortly after 5:00 pm. So stop by early if you wish, or just swing by at our normal starting time of 8:00 pm.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Can’t make it to Seattle? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally meets every Tuesday night, and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday.

With 231 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Were you reading this blog during the 2008 election season? If so, you may remember my election prediction posts that took you over to Hominid Views. This year, I’ll post the election predictions here.

I’ve spend the past week collecting polls, updating the software, creating a clickable cartogram for the 2012 electoral college, updating the FAQ, and figuring out how to make it all work on Horsesass. The first analysis for the presidential election will be posted later today.

At this point, I am only doing analyses of an Obama versus Romney general election. As much as I would like to see one of the weaker candidates take the G.O.P. nomination, I’m pretty certain Republicans will, as they did in 2008, act rationally, and chose the candidate that performs best against Obama in head-to-head polling. That is currently Mitt Romney. As the Republican primary circus continues, I’ll reassess. If, say, Santorum trickles on up to the front (eww!) or there is a crazy surge for Ron Paul, or the Mittster takes a tumble after unintentionally tweeting a photo of his underwear, or Rick Perry challenges the rest of ’em to a duel (and wins), I’ll switch do doing analyses for the new front-runner(s).

Later in the election season, I add senatorial and gubernatorial analyses as well.

When I post these analyses, there are occasionally naysayers. They complain that polls are meaningless, the analysis is flawed, or the results are not predictive, or “can’t we just wait for the ‘real poll'”, blah, blah, blah. I’ll repeat my counterargument.

It works the same way as the score at a sporting event. The first quarter score in, say, a basketball game doesn’t typically allow you to determine the eventual winner. The score, the spread, the amount of playing time remaining, and the recent changes in scoring momentum gives a good feel for how the game has progressed, who might win if things continue in the same vein, and what each team needs to do to attain victory. Somehow I think fans would not appreciate basketball scores being hidden until the the game has concluded.

Same with the election analyses. They aren’t predictions of the outcome on election day. Instead, they show the score so far. And the currency is a probability of winning, if the “game” ended now.

Another point from the naysayers in 2008 is that Nate Silver, now at the NY Times, does similar analyses, and everyone knows he is the best. Mr. Silver is an entertaining writer, and does a very nice job with graphics and site design. And since he does this stuff full time, he is quite prolific. Here is the problem I had with his 2008 analyses. He used a complicated (nearly proprietary) analysis that involved using information beyond simple polling data. This ancillary information was included as a pseudo-poll in his analyses. My preference is for a straightforward, data driven analysis that makes the fewest assumptions necessary.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating…so how did we each do in 2008? Here is his last pre-election post and here is mine. We both missed a single state—Indiana. The late polling in Indiana gave McCain a sliver of a lead, and the “big poll” came down in favor of Obama by a 1% margin.

For the electoral college, Mr. Silver projected a 349 to 189 victory for Obama and I projected a 364 to 174 victory for Obama. The actual result was 365 to 173. I was off by one vote.

This one vote discrepancy, in fact, reflected a weakness of my analysis. I ignored the possibility that either Nebraska or Maine might split their electoral votes. Nebraska’s 1st district did split in 2008, giving one of the state’s electors to Obama. If I had included this little detail, my projection would have been spot on. For the 2012 elections, I have already added separate analyses of Nebraska districts, and will do so for Maine when some district-level polling data becomes available.

For more information on the methods used, please visit the draft of the new simulation FAQ. Also if you have recommended changes or have additional questions for the FAQ, please mention them in the comment thread.

Update: The Obama-Romney analyses can be found here. There is now a side-bar blurb, too.