Presidential Candidates in Their Home States

How well are the candidates doing in the primaries in their homes states? Can they carry at least a majority? Is having more than two viable candidates affecting the Republicans? The following charts might provide a little insight to these questions.

John McCain in Arizona

John McCain stands alone as the candidate not to win a majority vote in his home state. Ron Paul is the only remaining candidate who could match this “achievement.”

If the 3% that voted for Rudy Giuliani had voted for McCain, his total would have been 50%. And if bullfrogs had wings… It’s pretty weak support for the likely winner of the Republican nomination.

Mike Huckabee in Arkansas

Republican Arkansas voters turned out to give Mike Huckabee a clear win at 60% compared to McCain’s 20% and Romney’s 14%.

Mitt Romney in Massachusetts

Mitt Romney wins in a squeaker with 51% of the vote in a virtual two-man race against John McCain. The other three candidates received less than 10% of the vote combined.

Ron Paul in Texas

This primary will occur on March 4.

Hillary Clinton in Arkansas

Not much to see here — move along. Hillary Clinton trounces Barack Obama with 70% vs. 27%.

Barack Obama in Illinois

Barack Obama returns the favor by beating Hillary Clinton, though not by quite the same margin, at 64% vs. 33%.

Source: New York Times Election Guide 2008: Primary Season Election Results as of February 7, 2008

We the People Act — stupid sometimes

Last November Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, to protect us from an out of control federal judiciary.


The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

(1) shall not adjudicate–

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).


Paul proposes this bill because, as he sees it, the federal courts “have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment.” But “free exercise or establishment of religion”? Hello? Ever hear of the U.S. Constitution, specifically its First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Paul proposes, by legislation, to gut the First Amendment to “return” free exercise or establishment of religion issues to the states. I guess we need to remind Paul how to amend the constitution.

Unfortunately, the bill gets worse.


Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

Looks like Paul forgot the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [* * *]

Someone get Paul a Constitution.

Hat tip: Danny Carlton, alias “JackLewis.Net”.