So Very Sleepy

Perusing the ABC News website results for the primaries last night, I noticed something interesting. With only about 52% reporting, the two Republican front-running candidates had a combined 800,000 votes or so (let's say, McCain = 580,000 and Huckabee = 220,000). But the Democrats, Obama and Clinton, had 800,000 votes apiece.

What does that mean? In terms of delegates, there are only about 10 more Republican delegates in Texas than Democratic delegates. Does the overwhelming turnout by Democratic voters signal that the state of Texas could go for a Democrat in the general election? McCain didn't exactly enthuse the registered GOP, while C & O apparently electrified Democrats.

I didn't stick around to see the final tallies, so maybe 1 million extra GOP votes showed up at some point. I was too sleepy to care.

One last thing: Obama's people, and a compliant and lazy media, have been stressing two things for weeks: superdelegates are unfair because they aren't allotted by the will of the voters; and winning primaries is just as good as winning delegates (which makes no sense in a proportional representation system like most states have for Democratic primaries). But, after losing Texas and Ohio, suddenly the Obama campaign wants everyone to know that it's actually irrelevant to win primaries, because despite the losses, Obama has the same cushion of delegates as before--and may even add to that when the final numbers are in. Did anyone else notice this change in rhetoric? Can we all agree that most of the fixation on the primaries thus far has been over these sorts of idiotic blusters? "I won! I won! Primaries are awesome!" "Oops, now I lost. Primaries are meaningless!"