Wow. Yes, Jayson, let's crunch the numbers. I hate to be the guy that rubs salt in the wound, (ok, not really, it kind of feels great after 7 years of "compassionate consveratism"). At this point, the Republicans have crowned a liberal democrat (I'm sure you guys, with McCain's help, will be trying to convince yourselves otherwise over the next 9 months) as the GOP nominee for November. But, and please read slowly, Hillary managed to get 160,000 more votes, in a meaningless, 0 delegates primary, when no Democrat even campaigned in the state of Florida, than your champion. It must be a great day to be a Republican. If Florida isn't blue in November, I'll eat my hat, which is gross because I just found my dog chewing on it.

Vote fraud was alive and well in Florida. The population surge in the last few days was enormous. Democrats doing what fascists do, cheat.

Heh, I can remember when a Democrat didn't run from being called a liberal and were proudly anti-veteran and military. Those are lasting victories. I also remember when being a Democrat meant being for "the little guy" and thinking that racial and gender discrimination was wrong, that individual rights versus group rights was about good versus evil.
It seems that Democrats are winning victories by surrendering principles that they once pretended to hold dear (after slavery and Jim Crow stopped working for the Dems, of course) and stoking racial hatred with their racial balkanization efforts.
That's nothing to be proud of, unless you care about political victory more than human rights. Sadly, many are drawn to the Democrats for that reason.

Well, since 20% of the vote were 'independents' who - illegally - voted in the Republican primary the results may be skewed. Most of the 'independents' have been trending for McCain. What's with all these states with weird rules that allows anyone to vote in a Party's primary whether or not they belong to the other party?

Sigh. Maybe on SuperTuesday we can finally have a Republican primary run by and for Republicans. Probably not.

Ryan you are so full of it. In 1980 and 1988 more Dims voted in the primary and looked what happened in the general. Just because your candidate LOST!!! does not mean the sky is falling...god what a bunch of babies.

There is no escape the reality-Hillary is our next President. And thank God for that. She will put the breaks on the racist, KKK, born-again Christian disaster that has been in charge for the last 7 years or so!

Young people don't actually vote.

Has that been the case everywhere, or just Florida? Obama and Edwards have been the candidates to attract the most young voters and without them campaigning or the fact that any votes for them in the Florida primary were meaningless (for now), why would one expect high youth turnout? But you should certainly show the trends in all primaries thus far before making such a generalized statement.

In general elections the 18-30 demographic maxes out under 20% of the total vote,.

Let's break down the population into 13 year age brackets (estimates of % population for 2000 from here, figure 2-2):
18-30 (18.25% of total population)
31-43 (20.08%)
44-56 (16.72%)
57-69 (10.13%)
69+ (9.15%)

I'm not sure what the exact population of each age bracket is, but 20% of the general election being from the 18-30 age bracket is actually more than (or at least equal to) their population percentage and does not support your statement that "Young people don't vote" at all.

Voters with total family incomes ranging from $30,000 - $100,000 made up:

-- 57% of the GOP primary.
-- 58% of the Democrat primary.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear a liberal Democrat from Pravda-media saying the GOP is "the party of the rich."

What the hell does this statistic have to do with either party being "the party of the rich"? $100,000 as a family income is certainly a decent amount of money and enough for any family to live on, but I would not say they are "rich"; they are squarely in the middle class in my book. Look at voter preferences for families making more than $1 million and then let's see if the breakdown is similar.

Here is an article where there is a table that says the following:

Under $30K Rep=25% Dem=38% Ind=34%
$30K-$75K Rep=43% Dem=40% Ind=41
Over $75K Rep=32% Dem=22% Ind=25%

So here the break is at $75K rather than $100K (but about the same as compared to $1 million+) and it shows that even here Republicans have a significant advantage among "the rich". Again, facts do not support your statements.

Hope none of those carcinogens were messing with your thought processes....

I didn't notice that. So, Jason, you consider a family that makes over $30,000 a year to be rich? Gee I didn't realize I was so wealthy. I think I'll go buy an oil rig.

School teachers are rich! Assistant Managers at Wal-Mart are upper class! The guy who fixed my sink was wearing a fur coat and diamond earrings!

This party is dead, even if John McCain wins the election, because he is a Democrat. And thank God. The party of hatred, bigotry, and the rich stepping on the backs of the poor. Not only that, they proved themselves to be far more corrupt than the Democrats could manage in their 40 years of control of congress. Here's to another 40, and the hope that this is the initial death knell of the GOP.

"The party of hatred, bigotry..."

That's rich, coming from the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow. How's Senior Senator Kleagle Byrd doing these days?