Sort of an Addendum

The BBC on-line reports, "High turnout in crucial New Hampshire vote." Now think about that for a minute.

I'll buy that Florida was a crucial vote in 2000. I'll buy that Ohio was crucial in 2004. Or at least they were last and thus carried the presumption that the outcomes there would decide the Presidential race.

But New Hampshire? The SECOND of FIFTY states? For a Primary election no less? What are the rest of us states? Swiss cheese?

The press tells me today that 72% (or something close to it) of the elected Presidents finished in the top two for their party in New Hampshire. Isn't that just amazing folks? Imagine the citizens of New Hampshire managed to figure out who the top two candidates in each party were and vote for them 72 percent of the time. If I lived in New Hampshire, I think I'd feel vaguely like my intelligence was just insulted. That is as amazing and useful a statistic as the one which told us that in 80% of the games won by Kurt Warner, he had a right-handed center lineman. Yup that's a shocker alright.

I for one do not propose to let New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, or CBS do my thinking for me. The more the press decides on a clear "front-runner" based on the outcomes of two states with minimal electoral votes, the more I hope that front-runner chokes in the stretch. Isn't that a stupid reason to vote for, or rather against, a particular candidate?